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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the return structure (source, citation_uri, payload), the effect of mark_read on subsequent calls, and the unread_only filter. No contradictions with annotations.

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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains return fields, the third lists filters, and the fourth addresses polling and alternative access. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers the core behavior well: return structure, filtering, mark_read mechanics, and polling. Minor gaps include not explaining the 'read' state lifecycle or unread_only details, but overall sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description adds extra semantic value by providing examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type), explaining the purpose of mark_read to flag events read, and clarifying the limit range (1-200, default 50). This goes beyond the schema 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 the subscription feed, specifying the verb 'Pull' and resource 'fired events from your subscription feed'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on recent alerts with source, citation_uri, and raw event payload, and notes an alternative access method.

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 for usage, including filtering by type and ISO timestamp, the mark_read behavior, and polling suitability. It mentions an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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