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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it returns source, citation_uri, and raw payload; describes mark_read behavior that affects subsequent calls. It does not contradict annotations. For a read-only tool, this is thorough. Score 4 because it adds beyond annotations but could mention ordering (most recent) more explicitly.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds new information: return fields, filters, mark_read behavior, and an alternative access method. No redundant or vague statements. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 no output schema, the description covers return fields and filtering well. It explains mark_read's effect on subsequent calls. However, it does not explicitly state the default ordering (most recent by time) or that limit defaults to 50. Still, it is adequate for correct usage. Score 4: complete for most use cases.

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds examples (e.g., 'sec_8k') and context for mark_read. It does not repeat schema docs but provides usage hints. This adds value beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 purpose: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies the resource (subscription feed alerts) and the action (pull/return). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_feeds and list_subscriptions by focusing on alerts. The verb 'Pull' and the mention of 'recent alerts' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 context: 'Polls work fine' suggests it's suitable for repeated calls, and it points to an external URL as an alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the filtering options and mark_read behavior provide clear usage guidance. A score of 4 reflects clear context with minor omissions.

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