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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the mark_read side-effect (flagging events read so next call only shows newer ones), the persistent feed nature, and the payload contents. This adds significant context beyond the hints, with no contradictions.

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 brief and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then layering details. Each sentence adds value—purpose, return contents, filtering/mark_read, and polling/alternative endpoint. No filler or 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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: what the feed is, what payloads contain, filtering options, mark_read behavior, and polling suitability. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it leaves limit/unread_only to the schema.

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?

Even though the schema provides 100% coverage, the description enhances parameter understanding with practical examples: 'type (e.g. "sec_8k")', 'since (ISO timestamp)', and 'mark_read:true' behavior. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, making parameter usage 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 clearly states the tool pulls fired events from the user's subscription feed, with a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('fired events from your subscription feed'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on subscription alerts, contrasting with tools like recent_changes or sec_8k_recent.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to fetch recent alerts from the subscription feed, with optional filters and mark_read behavior. It also mentions an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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