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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds ordering ('newest first'), discoverability semantics (delta-only), and access-tier behavior for specific change types, which the annotations do not convey. It omits any rate-limit or polling-cadence guidance.

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 delta semantic and dense enough to cover categories, chaining, and tier gating in two sentences. Slightly clause-heavy with parentheticals, but nothing 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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the key operational facts (delta semantics, chaining, ordering, tiers). Pagination via `cursor` is left to the schema, which is the main remaining gap for a 5-param tool.

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 only 40% across 5 params. The description compensates for the critical `since` param by explaining chaining (use the previous answer's `until`) and effectively enumerates the `types` enum values as change categories. However, `ids`, `cursor`, and `segment` get no mention anywhere except partial schema text, leaving real gaps.

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 (return only what changed) plus the exact resource scope: headlines, analyst views, price moves, market opens/closes, trader moves. The delta framing ('since your last call') cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling problee_get_context that returns full state.

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 explicit workflow guidance ('Call again with since = the answer's until') and flags tier gating ('API Pro' for trader moves, 'Plus and API Pro' at the end). It does not name the full-context alternative (problee_get_context) that a caller would use when they need a full snapshot, so routing is clear but not complete.

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