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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the monotonic cursor behavior and auth requirement, but does not mention whether it is read-only, return format, pagination limits, or error behavior. These gaps are significant for a polling tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place; the event categories are concise and informative. No verbosity.

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 should explain the return shape or behavior. It does not describe what the response looks like (e.g., list of events) or how pagination works. Given the moderate complexity and four optional params, the description is incomplete for a tool that needs to be understood without examples.

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% with each parameter having a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the cursor being monotonic and event typing, but does not add syntax details beyond the schema. It is adequate but not compensatory.

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 states the action (poll) and resource (typed treasury events) with concrete event categories (intent lifecycle, budget thresholds, reconciliation, security alerts). It distinguishes from sibling list_* tools by focusing on a monotonic cursor event stream, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies usage for retrieving treasury events with a cursor and notes that auth is required. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus list_* tools, nor any conditions for when not to use it. The context is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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