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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that withdrawn records are returned as tombstones with no content — a return-shape behavior an agent would otherwise trip over. It does not mention ordering or pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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, no waste, and the core scope statement comes first with the tombstone caveat second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the tombstone note covers the main edge case. Still missing is the format/interpretation of the required 'since' parameter and any hint about result ordering when using limit — meaningful gaps for a change-feed tool.

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 only 33% — just the limit parameter is documented in the schema. The description says 'since a time' but never gives the expected format for the required 'since' string (ISO timestamp? epoch? relative?), and the domain enum values carry no explanation. This is a real gap the description should have filled.

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The description states a concrete resource and scope: 'public records created, changed or withdrawn since a time', which makes the delta/change-feed nature of the tool obvious. It is clear what is returned, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as search_resources or get_gtm_related_records, so an agent must infer it is the incremental-sync variant.

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?

'Since a time' strongly implies polling for changes after a checkpoint, which is implicit usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_* or get_* sibling tools, and no noted prerequisites or exclusions.

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