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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context — events accumulate while nobody is connected, the default window is the last 7 days, and the response carries a `next_since` cursor to chain calls. It does not disclose ordering or what happens when the limit is hit, which keeps it below 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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then the when-to-use rule, then the cursor mechanic. The closing sentence ('This is how you stay current across conversations...') is motivational framing that partly restates the earlier guidance, a small amount of redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 5-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, cursor chaining and the default window, which is enough to call it correctly. The one gap is that it never hints at the shape of an individual event beyond a few names, though the cursor mention partly compensates.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by documenting the `since`/`next_since` cursor contract and the last-7-days default, neither of which the schema states. It says nothing extra about `limit`, `site_id` or `event_names`, but those are already well described in the schema.

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 — returns what happened across workspace sites since a given moment — and enumerates concrete event types (designs generated, client selecting a direction, sites published, generations failing). This is clearly distinguishable from the many list_* entity tools in the sibling set, which enumerate objects rather than activity.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this at the START of a session to pick up where you left off.' That is a clear when-to-use rule with no ambiguity. It stops short of naming a when-not or pointing to an alternative sibling for historical/audit queries, so it falls 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.