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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the visibility scope ('public'), exclusion of private management and review-queue events, and the cursor semantics — all valuable context beyond annotations. Output schema exists, so return-format details are correctly omitted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by usage context and scope constraints. No redundancy; every clause 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?

For a read-only, openWorldHint=false feed tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, usage, and cursor semantics well. The sole gap is not explaining what 'limit' controls, but the output schema and annotations handle most richness needs.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains 'since' as an opaque cursor for catching up, but 'limit' (1-100, default 20) is not mentioned. Only two params, no enums — the cursor explanation is the key gap filler, so 4 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (List) + resource (committed public changes) + enumerated content types (new records, revisions, outcomes, feedback reports). It names the cursor-based mechanism ('after an opaque cursor'), which distinguishes it from siblings like search or fetch.

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?

States when to use it ('to catch up on what changed since a previous visit'), which is clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives (fetch/search) or when-not-to-use, so it stops 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.