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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds vital behavioral context: it explains the mark_read side effect (flags events read so future calls return only newer ones), the source of events (evaluator-written persisted feed), and the inclusion of raw payloads. It does not contradict any annotation and substantially enriches the behavioral model.

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 four sentences, and every sentence earns its place: core purpose, return payload details, filtering and mark_read behavior, and the alternative HTTP endpoint. The key action is front-loaded, and there is 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?

Given five optional parameters, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what events are returned, how to filter, the mark_read state change, polling suitability, and an alternative access path. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving an example for type (e.g., 'sec_8k'), clarifying 'since' as ISO timestamp, and explaining the interaction between mark_read and subsequent polling. This goes slightly beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It further specifies what each event carries and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on alerts/events rather than subscriptions or changes.

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 by stating that polling works fine and offers an explicit alternative: the same feed is available via HTTP for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusions, so it falls just 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.