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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are paginated one page at a time, and a next_after cursor is null on the final page, which tells the agent how to detect completion. It stops short of describing ordering, page size behavior, or what happens when the find has no revisit.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the most important information (what is returned) before the pagination detail. Nothing is padded, though the mismatch between the described `next_after` and the schema's `after` costs a little 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?

With no output schema, explaining the return value falls to the description, and it does partially: three result categories plus the end-of-pagination signal. Still missing are the record shape, the default and maximum page size implied by `limit`, and error behavior for an unknown find_id — so an agent can call it but cannot fully anticipate what it gets back.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'next_after is the after value for the next page' effectively explains the purpose of the `after` parameter as a cursor. However, `limit` and `find_id` get no explanation at all (valid range, default page size, what a find id refers to), and the description introduces the name `next_after`, which does not appear in the input schema and may confuse the agent about which field to pass back.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it reads one page of the records a recheck examined, broken into what still holds, what changed, and what it could not reach. That is far more concrete than a restatement of the name, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby readers such as get_find, get_reconciliation, or get_investigation_results, so an agent still has to reason about where 'revisit' sits in the family.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The phrase 'a recheck looked at' implies the tool is called after a recheck has run, but the description never states the precondition (e.g. that a revisit must exist for the find), never names an alternative, and never says when another reader should be used instead. The agent must infer the workflow position from the word 'recheck' alone.

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