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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the revision is monotonic, it increments once per completion, and the call 'does not change a handoff' – all of which clarify the polling model. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. The phrase 'from this key's cursor' is slightly opaque but the overall structure is tight.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this covers the semantics an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that the return shape (list of handoffs with revisions) is implied rather than stated and no output schema exists to fill that in.

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% and the parameter description already explains 'Return revisions greater than this. Omit to use this key's cursor.' The prose largely restates the cursor fallback and adds the monotonic/completion-rate framing, which is light incremental value.

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 completed handoffs) plus the scoping condition (after a monotonic revision), which tells an agent exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_handoff_result or wait_for_handoff, so the agent must infer which read tool to pick.

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 gives operational guidance for the single parameter ('Omit since to continue from this key's cursor'), which is genuinely useful usage direction. But it says nothing about when to prefer this over get_handoff_result or wait_for_handoff, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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