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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description states that setting mark_read:true flags events as read, which modifies server state. This constitutes an annotation contradiction. Description adds useful context (feed location, polling behavior, payload fields) but the contradiction undermines transparency.

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 block of text that could be more structured. The first sentence is long and dense, packing multiple details. While clear, it could be broken into bullet points or shorter sentences for easier parsing.

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 read tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return format (source, citation_uri, raw payload), the effect of mark_read, and provides an alternative endpoint. It gives sufficient context for correct invocation, though it doesn't describe pagination or handling of large feeds.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: provides a type filter example ('sec_8k'), explains that mark_read:true persists across calls, and clarifies unread_only behavior. This significantly aids agent 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 the subscription feed and returns recent alerts with specific fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe or list_subscriptions by focusing on reading recent 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 mentions polling works fine and provides an alternative via direct GET endpoint for scripts/dashboards. It also explains that setting mark_read:true will only show newer events on next call, implying a polling use case. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., for historical queries beyond the feed).

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