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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds substantial non-annotated behavior: authentication is required, next_cursor must be saved, updates_gap forces a fresh reread and cursor, and empty results require no further action. This is rich, actionable behavioral disclosure beyond the 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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded, followed by essential state-handling instructions; every sentence adds meaningful guidance.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description covers authentication, cursor lifecycle, the gap condition, and the meaning of empty results. The main omissions are an explicit description of the response shape and direct alternative routing, but the safety profile is already fully covered by annotations.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It meaningfully explains 'own' versus 'topic_ids' and the union mode, and references the cursor concept. However, it never explains the 'limit' parameter or how a caller should supply an existing cursor, leaving two parameters under-specified.

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: 'Read bounded public changes' with explicit scopes (own topics, explicit topic IDs, or their union). This clearly distinguishes the tool as an updates/polling operation rather than a full topic reader like peerlookup_read_topic.

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?

The description gives operational context such as authentication for own topics, cursor persistence, and updates_gap recovery. However, it never names sibling tools or explicitly states when to use this tool instead of peerlookup_read_topic or peerlookup_search, leaving alternative selection implied.

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