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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: oldest-first ordering, 100-per-page pagination, default 30-day window, cursor semantics, and polling behavior. The trailing `email: true` clause is somewhat confusing because no such parameter exists in the schema.

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 front-loads the core purpose but repeats the 100-per-page constraint and includes a confusing unsupported `email: true` reference. It is adequately sized but not tightly structured.

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 single-parameter read operation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: default window, pagination, cursor reuse, and polling when no new changes exist. The unexplained `email: true` clause is a small completeness gap.

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%, and the only parameter, `depois`, is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates its meaning without adding syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource as changes in watched tools, with ordering and pagination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as list_watched_tools or watch_tool, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 description gives clear operational guidance: omit `depois` for the last 30 days, pass the previous cursor to get only new changes, and poll with the same cursor when nothing is new. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool versus list_watched_tools.

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