subscribe_events

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it discloses that the call returns SSE and long-poll endpoint URLs and that the callback is optional, which annotations do not convey. It stops short of stating permissions or what happens to existing subscriptions on re-call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the callback option and the returned endpoints. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned endpoint URLs for SSE and long-poll delivery. It still leaves open what the response looks like when only a callback is configured and how repeated calls interact with idempotencyHint, but for a 3-param tool it is substantially 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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the callback_url POST behavior and the empty-value fallback. The description overlaps with rather than extends that coverage, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Configure push notification delivery for task events.' An agent can tell it is about subscribing to event delivery rather than publishing (publish_event) or polling (poll_tasks). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 implicitly signals when to use it ('Configure push notification delivery') and mentions alternative delivery mechanisms (SSE, long-poll) inside the tool. But it never states when to choose this over poll_tasks or publish_event, nor any prerequisites for subscribing, so usage context is only implied.

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