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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: oldest-first ordering, the burst-grouping model, and the crucial caveat that a change entry retains only the latest call's arguments. It does not restate pagination mechanics, but the schema's offset/has_more text covers those.

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?

Front-loaded summary that states the operation, ordering, and the key caveat before the example, followed by a compact returns block. Slightly prose-heavy but each sentence carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema, yet the description supplies a returns block naming `calls` (id, created_at, arguments, ordered oldest first) and `has_more`. Combined with the schema's complete parameter docs, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and page through results.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the change_id provenance and the offset/has_more loop. The description adds only conceptual framing (the burst grouping) rather than parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read every call in one change made outside Sliq by the user's or a teammate's MCP clients', with explicit scope (oldest first). It distinguishes itself from the change entry itself, which 'carries only the latest call's arguments', so an agent can tell it apart from get_agent_details without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear use condition ('use this when you need the others') and a concrete example (every prospect an `update_prospect` burst edited). It also points to where change_id comes from (get_agent_details `mcp_changes`). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool named, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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