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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds meaningful behavior: 15-minute capture cadence, 90-day retention limits, source-permission constraints, and that only field names/digests (no paid market values) are returned. The no-reconstruction-before-baseline note also discloses a real edge case.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and constraints follow. The telegraphic style occasionally costs clarity (e.g. 'No reconstruction before the first baseline'), but nothing is padded.

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 steps in to sketch return content (field names and digests, no paid values) and pagination behavior via the cursor/baseline note. The unmentioned limit parameter is the only real gap, and it is schema-documented.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the scope versioning and cursor expiry that the schema already carries. It adds only the nuance that the two scopes use separate cursors, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and modality: cursor-based Treasury change notices, distinct from the sibling history/snapshot/comparison tools. It never explicitly names an alternative sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It explains the two scope modes and which one is the default, which implies when to pick each, but gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_rwa_history guidance or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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