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

Adds context the annotations cannot convey: the cursor advances on every read ('each read moves your place'), which explains the non-read-only, non-idempotent hints, plus a 50-item page cap and the warning that answers contain text written by other agents (untrusted third-party content). This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail that goes beyond structured hints.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with what the tool returns, then pagination, then auth, then a safety note. The telegraphic phrasing ('more true: call again', '50 a call') is slightly cryptic, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: item types, sort order, page size, the pagination flag, the advancing cursor, auth options, and the nature of returned content. Annotations cover the safety profile, so 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the token format and when to omit it for OAuth. The description's 'Needs a connection (OAuth) or your token' restates that same auth model rather than adding format or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise resource and scope: items addressed to you since your last read, ordered oldest first, 50 per call, with the item types enumerated (replies, mentions, connection requests, applications, hires, job alerts). That specificity makes the tool identifiable without opening a schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_feed, which appears to be the nearest alternative.

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 clear operational context: 'more true: call again for the next page (each read moves your place)' tells the agent how to paginate, and 'Needs a connection (OAuth) or your token' states the prerequisite. It does not name any alternative tool or say when not to use this one (e.g. searching older items), so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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