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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds behavioral detail: mark_read behavior, returned fields (source, citation_uri, payload), and ISO timestamp filtering. 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value: returns fields, filtering options, mark_read behavior, alternative access method. No fluff, though slightly verbose.

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?

No output schema, but description details return fields and includes polling guidance and alternative endpoint. Sufficient for a read-only list tool with good annotations.

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 covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions. Description enhances with examples ('sec_8k'), clarifies mark_read effect, and explains unread_only filtering. Adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'pull fired events' and resource 'subscription feed'. It provides specific details like returning most recent alerts with source, citation_uri, and raw payload. No sibling tool overlaps, so it distinguishes well.

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?

Description explains when to use (polling works fine) and provides an alternative GET endpoint for scripts/dashboards. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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