Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the side effect of mark_read (flagging events as read), the return field details, and the fact that the same feed is accessible via an alternative endpoint. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph of about 4 sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses clear language. While it could be broken into bullet points for readability, it remains concise and free of unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return contents (source, citation_uri, payload). It covers filtering options and the mark_read side effect. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling, or behavior when limit is exceeded. Annotations cover safety, so overall it is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents parameters. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of mark_read, unread_only, and providing examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type, ISO timestamp for since). This goes beyond what the schema provides, earning a score above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' as the main purpose. It specifies the return content (source, citation_uri, raw payload). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'events' or 'list_subscriptions', which could have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains how to use parameters for filtering (type, since) and state management (mark_read). It also mentions that polling is acceptable and provides an alternative access endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'events'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.