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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: explains the mark_read effect ('flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones'), describes event structure (source, citation_uri, raw payload), and notes the limit range (1-200, default 50). 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 compact: 3 sentences front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter details and an alternative endpoint. Every sentence adds value without 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values. It does: each event carries source, citation_uri, and raw payload. It also covers pagination (limit) and read-state management. Lacks discussion of empty results or error cases, but is sufficient for a straightforward read 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 meaning beyond schema: provides an example for type ('sec_8k'), clarifies that since expects an ISO timestamp, and explains mark_read and unread_only semantics. This elevates it above baseline.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies the resource (subscription feed alerts) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and subscribe, which manage subscriptions rather than retrieve recent events.

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 that 'Polls work fine' and provides an HTTP alternative for scripts/dashboards, giving explicit when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_within or compare_entities for deeper querying, though the context is clear enough.

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