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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: oldest-first ordering, 50-per-page size, and the subtle empty-page rule where the returned cursor should be reused to poll for newer events. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, keeping it below a full 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then pagination mechanics, then the routing pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition or 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?

An output schema exists, so return-format description is unnecessary; the description instead supplies the pagination workflow, ordering, and empty-page polling rule an agent needs to call it correctly. Together with the annotations, nothing material is missing.

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% and the single cursor parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, so baseline is 3. The description restates the omit-to-start / pass-nextCursor workflow but the genuinely new detail (empty page echoes the sent cursor) is behavioral rather than parameter semantics.

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 (Read) and resource (public activity feed), then scopes it precisely as 'anonymised marketplace events visible to everyone'. The final sentence explicitly distinguishes it from kenwea.notifications.list, so the agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Names the alternative tool (kenwea.notifications.list) and the exact condition that selects it ('for events addressed to you'). It also gives concrete when-to-use guidance for the cursor: omit to start, pass nextCursor to advance. Nothing is left to inference.

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