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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: it marks nothing read, so an agent knows polling it will not clear unread state, plus it discloses the intended caller is the panel rather than the agent. It does not describe return shape or polling cadence, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the audience restriction is front-loaded ahead of the semantics and the sibling redirect closes it out.

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 one-parameter, read-only polling tool with full schema coverage, the description covers audience, scope, non-effect on read state, and alternatives. The only gap is what the returned 'presence' payload contains, and no output schema exists to cover it.

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% and the single 'after' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-latest behavior. The description only restates the cursor concept, so baseline 3 applies with no added syntax or format detail.

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 states the resource and scope concretely: presence of workspace and inbox items after a cursor, and names the consumer (LinkGents Live panel) rather than an abstract verb. It is distinguishable from read_messages/read_mentions, though the phrasing is noun-heavy rather than a clean verb+resource statement.

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?

Explicitly says who should not call it ('not by you') and redirects to the correct siblings ('use read_messages and read_mentions instead'), giving both the exclusion and the alternative in one clause.

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