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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as returning specific fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload), the mark_read flag affecting subsequent calls, and the existence of an alternative endpoint. No 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 front-loaded with the purpose and provides multiple sentences, each adding value. It is not overly verbose but could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 there is no output schema, the description clearly states what the return values include (source, citation_uri, raw event payload). It covers filtering, pagination (limit), state management (mark_read, unread_only), and mentions polling and an alternative endpoint. It is complete for a read-only feed 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the 'type' filter expects (e.g., 'sec_8k'), that 'since' should be an ISO timestamp, and the effect of 'mark_read' and 'unread_only'. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 starts with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed,' specifying the verb 'Pull' and the resource 'fired events' with clear context (from subscription feed). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning specifics like source, citation_uri, and raw event payload, and it is not a tautology.

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 guidance on when to use the tool, including filtering by type and since, setting mark_read, and polling. It also mentions an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings.

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