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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals that events carry source, citation_uri, and raw payload, and that mark_read:true acknowledges events so next call returns newer ones. This adds meaningful context about the acknowledgment mechanism and polling suitability. No contradiction 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 four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, describing return contents, mentioning filters, and explaining acknowledgment and polling. No redundant information; it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description adequately covers what each alert contains (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It also provides an alternative endpoint for scripts, which adds context. The coverage of parameter usage is sufficient for effective invocation.

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?

All five parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds value by explaining the 'type' filter with an example ('sec_8k') and clarifying that 'since' expects an ISO timestamp. It also explains the behavior of 'mark_read' beyond the schema description, enhancing understanding.

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 the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed and returns recent alerts with source, citation_uri, and raw payload. It mentions filtering options, distinguishing its function from other tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools. The verb 'pull' and resource 'fired events' provide specific purpose.

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 when to use the tool (to retrieve recent alerts from a subscription feed) and mentions filtering by type and since. It also notes that polls work fine, implying repeated calls are acceptable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives like subscribe or list_subscriptions.

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