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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds value by explaining the checkpoint/cursor mechanism (next_since) and the deduplication requirement, which are not inferable from annotations. It complements rather than repeats the structured hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers critical runtime behavior: storing the cursor, deduplication, and handling truncated windows. This is sufficient for correct usage. Minor omissions (e.g., explicit pagination details) are covered by the cursor mechanism. Overall, complete for a checkpoint-based 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to individual parameters, though it implicitly clarifies 'since' via the checkpoint concept. It focuses on output handling rather than input semantics, so it does not elevate the score.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'Recent activity since a previous checkpoint.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('updates') and conveys the scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_briefing, but the checkpoint concept is distinct enough.

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?

Provides explicit operational guidance: 'Store next_since after processing; deduplicate by id + updated. A null next_since means the window was truncated: narrow by board.' This tells the agent exactly how to handle the result and when to adjust parameters. No ambiguity.

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