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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that setting mark_read=true flags events as read and that the same feed is accessible via a REST endpoint. It does not contradict annotations; the additional context enhances understanding of side effects (e.g., mark_read modifies state).

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 that efficiently conveys key information: purpose, return fields, filters, and an alternative endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main action. Though slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 thoroughly explains return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and covers all parameter behaviors (filtering, mark_read, unread_only). It also provides an alternative access method for scripts and dashboards, making the tool's role in the ecosystem clear. This is highly complete for a read-only polling tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type) and clarifying that 'since' is an ISO timestamp and that 'unread_only' returns events with null read_at. This helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair ('Pull fired events from your subscription feed') and specifies what each returned alert contains (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It distinguishes itself from other tools by mentioning an alternative access method for scripts and dashboards, making its specific role clear.

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 get recent alerts, with optional filters) and provides explicit details on filtering parameters (type, since, mark_read, unread_only). It also mentions that polling works fine and gives an alternative endpoint, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with siblings.

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