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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds crucial behavior: mark_read:true flags events as read, affecting future calls, and it notes that polling works fine. It also describes the return payload fields and the alternative endpoint, providing rich context without contradicting the 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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action, details the return fields, filtering options, and the mark_read behavior, plus provides an alternative URL—all in a compact, well-structured form.

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?

With 5 optional params, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the feed contains, how to filter, the mark_read side effect, polling friendliness, and an alternative endpoint. Nothing seems missing for a simple feed retrieval 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example for 'type' (sec_8k) and explaining the side-effect behavior of 'mark_read' (flagging returned events read so next call shows newer ones). It doesn't elaborate on limit or unread_only, but the schema already describes those adequately.

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 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' and returns 'the most recent alerts'. It specifies the resource (subscription feed) and the verb (pull), distinguishing it from siblings like list_subscriptions and recent_changes by focusing on fired events with source, citation_uri, and raw payload.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (polling, retrieving recent alerts) and even suggests an alternative access method via a direct URL for scripts/dashboards. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like recent_changes or list_subscriptions, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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