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

The description explicitly states that setting mark_read:true flags returned events as read, which is a state mutation. This contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint:true, which implies the tool does not modify state. Even though mark_read is optional, the tool's behavior under that parameter conflicts with the top-level annotation, making this a flagrant contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs in the return contents, filtering options, mark_read behavior, polling guidance, and an alternative URL—all in three sentences with no unnecessary 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what each alert carries (source, citation_uri, raw payload), how to filter, the side effect of mark_read, and points to a polling-friendly alternative endpoint. This is a complete picture for a tool with 5 optional parameters.

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 schema already covers all 5 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful clarifications: gives an example value for type ('sec_8k'), notes since expects an ISO timestamp, and explains the behavioral effect of mark_read (so the next call only shows newer ones). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states the tool 'pulls fired events from your subscription feed' and returns 'the most recent alerts' with source, citation_uri, and raw payload. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions (which lists subscriptions) and recent_changes (likely a different resource).

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?

It provides usage context: 'Polls work fine' and notes the same feed is available via a public URL for scripts/dashboards, implying this tool is for interactive polling. It also explains how to use mark_read to see only newer events. However, it does not explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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