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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the auth requirement, the cursor contract, the fact that a reset cursor can cause events to repeat once, and the deduplication obligation. Those are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and none are in the structured fields.

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 with the access constraint, then content, then cursor mechanics, then polling cadence — each sentence carries distinct information. The paragraph is dense and packs four separate concerns, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return semantics itself (events, cursor_reset, next_check_in_minutes) and covers auth, polling cadence, and dedup handling. For a one-parameter read tool this is complete enough to call correctly without guessing.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description largely restates it as 'Pass since = the cursor from the previous call'. The cursor_reset explanation adds some meaning about what the cursor can become, but not much beyond the schema baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: return only what changed since the last check, listing the event types (new bookings, cancellations, follow-ups due, jobs today). That delta-feed framing clearly separates it from list-style siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly for contrast.

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?

It gives real usage context: owners only / needs sign-in, pass the previous cursor, poll roughly every next_check_in_minutes in a scheduled watcher, and only message the pro when events is non-empty. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, keeping it 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.