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

The description states 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones,' indicating a state-changing side effect. This directly contradicts the annotations readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which assert no mutation and idempotency. The contradiction is significant.

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 compact three-sentence paragraph: first introduces the core action, then details return fields and filters, and finally explains mark_read and an alternative endpoint. Every sentence adds valuable context with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers essential missing context: the structure of returned events (source, citation_uri, raw payload), filtering options, stateful mark_read behavior, and the REST endpoint for programmatic access. It provides a complete operational picture.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, the description adds practical semantics: type example 'sec_8k', clarification that since is an ISO timestamp, and the behavioral effect of mark_read. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions, making parameter intent substantially clearer.

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 opens with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed,' giving a specific verb and resource. It further specifies what the tool returns (most recent alerts with source, citation_uri, and raw payload), clearly differentiating it from siblings like recent_changes by its focus on subscription-fired alerts.

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 provides concrete usage context: filtering by type and since, using mark_read for polling semantics, and noting the alternative REST endpoint for scripts. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear and actionable for common use cases.

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