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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions returning changes and a 'next' checkpoint to save, implying read-only and incremental behavior, but does not clarify side effects, pagination, or error handling.

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 is extremely concise, conveying the core idea in a single sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary structure.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what constitutes a 'change', how the checkpoint interacts with 'since', or the purpose of namespace and size limits, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema lists four parameters with types and constraints but no descriptions. The description only vaguely references an 'opaque checkpoint' without mapping it to 'since' or 'next', and entirely omits explanations for 'limit', 'max_bytes', and 'namespace'. Parameter semantics are essentially absent.

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 specifies a clear action: retrieve changes after an opaque checkpoint. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_feed or search_notes by focusing on incremental changes with a checkpoint mechanism.

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 includes an implicit usage hint ('save next and reuse it as since') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or what scenarios it is best suited for. The guidance is embedded rather than explicit.

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