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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context, such as the mark_read parameter affecting subsequent calls, the persistence of the feed, and the alternative URL access method. No contradictions.

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 with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the main action and each sentence contributes useful information, including parameter usage and alternative access. Optimal length for clarity.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return fields (source, citation_uri, payload), filtering options, and mark_read side effect. Context is complete given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 providing examples for 'type' (e.g., 'sec_8k'), explaining the 'since' parameter as ISO timestamp, and detailing the effect of 'mark_read'. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 a subscription feed, using specific verb 'pull' and resource 'fired events from your subscription feed'. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on alert feed retrieval.

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 mentions filtering by type and since, and explains mark_read behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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