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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true conflicts with the description's statement 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones.' This side effect modifies feed state, contradicting the read-only claim. The description is transparent about the mutation, but the annotation misrepresents the tool's overall behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each with clear purpose. The first sentence states the core function, the second describes return payload composition, and the third covers filtering, mark_read behavior, polling, and an alternative endpoint. No wasted words.

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-oriented tool with full schema and annotations, this description is strong: it explains return fields, filtering, mark_read semantics, and alternative access. Missing unread_only behavior is a minor gap since the schema covers it. The contradiction with readOnlyHint reduces trust but not completeness.

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?

The input schema already fully documents all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds an example for type ('sec_8k'), clarifies since as ISO timestamp, and explains the practical effect of mark_read. It does not mention limit or unread_only, but those are adequately described in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed'. It specifies the resource (subscription alerts) and the action (pull/return), and differentiates from sibling tools like read_feed/fetch_feed by emphasizing 'alerts' and mentioning the evaluator-written feed.

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 gives practical usage context: 'Polls work fine' and explains the mark_read parameter for tracking reads. It also points to an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards, which helps an agent choose between this tool and other access methods. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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