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

Given `readOnlyHint: true` already declares the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: cursor direction semantics, embedded triggered anomalies, and the meta block with facets and timeline chart. The description is consistent with the read-only annotation and enriches it with concrete pagination and payload context.

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?

The description is four dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by pagination semantics, embedded anomalies, and meta information — each sentence adds necessary information.

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?

The description is surprisingly complete for a 10-parameter list tool without an output schema: it covers ordering, pagination, anomaly embedding, and page metadata. It does not enumerate the exact event payload fields, but the 'typed change event' framing plus the schema's type enum lowers the cost of that omission. Still, an output schema or a more explicit event-shape summary would raise completeness further.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the different directions of `cursor` vs `prev_cursor`, the 'live polling' use case, and the meta block generated for the first page.

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, 'List global change events,' and key ordering behavior, 'newest-first.' It is clear and distinct from incident/anomaly-related siblings, although it doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling for comparison.

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 conveys usage context through pagination direction: `cursor` walks older events, `prev_cursor` walks newer events and is 'for live polling.' However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names, so comparative selection is left to the agent's inference.

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