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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses authentication and cursor-based pagination, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or the return structure of events. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose and key features. Every sentence provides valuable information without filler.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description should describe return event structure for agent consumption. It lists event types but not the full schema. The tool's behavior and prerequisites are well-covered, making it adequate but not complete.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond reinforcing the cursor concept for after_id. The schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 clearly specifies the tool's purpose: it retrieves the registry change feed, listing specific event types (drift, auth flips, etc.). It uniquely identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that check servers/stack or search registry.

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 mentions cursor-based pagination for resuming and requires a Registry Licence key with a link to obtain one. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tools are sufficiently different, and the context implies usage for polling change events.

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