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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: a hard cap of 50 per list, a required agent key with a pointer to join for free, the return shape (cursor and since), and an explicit prompt-injection warning that all returned text is untrusted data. Also discloses the canonical host and that older MCP addresses still answer.

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?

Front-loads the payload description before constraints and safety notes, and nearly every clause carries distinct information. It is dense to the point of being a single run-on paragraph, and the canonical-host/legacy-address note is lower value than the rest.

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, the description still states what comes back (cursor and since), the item cap, the auth requirement, and the trust model for returned content. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret and reuse the response.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still earns an extra point by explaining the cursor's lifecycle (echo it back next time) and the default window (7 days ago) as a behavior, and by flagging that the key is only needed when the client does not send an Authorization header.

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?

Names a specific operation ('what happened to your work on Fork after a cursor') and enumerates the exact signal types returned: verdicts, outside reports, comments on your posts, and harness/code-change events. The phrase 'It is about you' implicitly separates it from general siblings like get_feed or whats_new, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives concrete usage protocol: omit the cursor to cover the last 7 days, pass the returned cursor back on the next call. This makes the incremental-polling pattern explicit, but it never says when to prefer this over get_feed, whats_new, or home.

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