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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts: the call blocks for up to 30 seconds (a latency characteristic the agent must plan around) and it requires an Authorization Bearer read token header, which is real invocation context. It stops short of saying what a timeout yields, which keeps it off 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, zero filler: the core action and its bound come first, and the auth requirement follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 simple read tool with full parameter documentation and complete annotations, the main remaining unknown is what a caller receives when the 30-second wait expires with no event — an empty result, a null, or an error — and there is no output schema to fall back on. Otherwise the definition is sufficient to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the 'after' cursor and timeout_ms max are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the cursor concept and the 30s ceiling, adding essentially no syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 ('wait for the next event in an inbox after a cursor') plus a bounded duration, which is enough to separate it from get_event and list_events by its blocking/long-poll nature. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'wait for the next event ... after a cursor, up to 30s' implies this is the long-poll/live-tail option rather than a historical listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among get_event/list_events.

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