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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: a blocking call bounded at 45 s, plus the loop termination condition. However, it never says what a 'change' payload looks like, what happens on timeout with no changes, or any error/permission behavior, leaving real gaps for a polling primitive.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (45 s bounded wait) is front-loaded ahead of the cursor mechanics and the loop rule.

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 two-parameter polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the invocation loop but not the return contract or the required `id` semantics. An agent knows how to call it repeatedly but not what it will receive or what to pass as `id`.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `cursor` parameter well (value returned by the previous call), but the required `id` is only implicitly identified as the diligence by the phrase 'na diligência' — no format, source, or whether it is the diligence or item id.

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 with scope: waits up to 45 s for changes in the diligence, which identifies it as a long-poll operation distinct from one-shot readers like get_diligence or get_item. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 a concrete protocol: pass the cursor from the previous call and repeat while items are 'fetching' or 'waiting'. That is clear operational guidance on how and when to loop. It does not contrast with the non-blocking alternative (get_diligence), which keeps it below a 5.

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