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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: privacy-preserving fingerprints, cursor lifecycle across polls, no paid delivery inferred, and never signs payments. It stops short of covering rate limits or pagination limits, but the added transparency is strong.

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?

Five short sentences with no obvious repetition, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Some phrases (e.g., 'No paid delivery is inferred') are cryptic, but the description remains compact and information-dense.

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?

The description covers purpose, privacy, cursor behavior, and side-effect boundaries, which is helpful. But for a four-parameter polling tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, it omits crucial details about filtering (listing_id), time windows (since), and result size (limit), leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all four parameters. It only addresses the cursor ('drained cursor advances... retain it') and leaves limit, since, and listing_id completely undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning and format.

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 ('Read changes') and resource ('unsigned payment challenges'), making the operation clear. However, it uses domain jargon ('offers', 'unsigned payment challenges') without defining it, and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like list_grade_changes.

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 gives polling behavior ('a drained cursor advances... retain it') but says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context it should be preferred. An agent must infer usage from the cursor note alone.

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