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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does cover the meaningful traits: ordering (oldest first), incremental cursor semantics, and what event types appear. It never states the operation is read-only, whether calls are rate-limited, or whether the feed can be truncated, so key behavioral context is missing for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the payload and ordering stated first, then the polling recipe, then the optional filter. The trailing fragment 'Optional league filter' is slightly tacked on but earns its place by flagging the only optional scope control.

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 four-parameter read feed with full schema description coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough: payload categories, ordering, and the meta.next_cursor return hint. It stops short of describing the response envelope or event payload fields, which matters slightly more given no output schema exists.

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 the schema already documents limit, since, league and user_request. The description reinforces the cursor protocol for since and notes that league is optional, but adds no detail on limit bounds or on the required user_request parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource ('the change feed') and enumerates its contents precisely: new props, line moves, price moves and status changes. It states ordering ('oldest first') and cursor scope, which separates it in spirit from list_props or prop_history, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives a clear usage context ('keep up with the market without rereading the board') and the exact polling protocol: start with since 0, then pass back meta.next_cursor. It does not name an alternative for one-off historical lookups or state when not to use the feed, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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