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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns new/modified records based on a cursor, implying it is a read operation with state tracking. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent assessing safety.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose and cursor usage. It avoids fluff but could be slightly more structured to separate usage guidance from filter reference.

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?

Given 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the cursor mechanism well but does not describe return values, pagination, limits, or any caveats. The cross-reference to new_funding helps but relies on the agent knowing that tool's capabilities.

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 71% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'Same filters as new_funding,' which cross-references another tool for context. However, it does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, and the reference assumes knowledge of new_funding.

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 tool returns grants/trials that are NEW or MODIFIED since a cursor token, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delta_digest or entity_watch, relying on the cursor mechanism for implicit 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?

The description instructs to pass the cursor from a prior call and notes that filters are the same as new_funding, providing some context on when to use. But it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., full data retrieval).

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