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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: 90-day retention, oldest-first ordering, a 1,000-event scan ceiling per call, newest-first return, and a 7-day default window. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs to avoid missing or misreading events.

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 sentences, front-loaded with scope then mechanics then the alternative. The clause 'Passed back in a later call, its next_cursor reads only what came after' is slightly convoluted but carries necessary semantics, so nothing is truly 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?

All five parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers ordering, retention, limits, defaults and pagination. With no output schema, it could have said more about the shape of a returned event (fields, `next_cursor` presence), which is the only remaining gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the interplay between `since` and `cursor` (a cursor makes `since` irrelevant and reads only what came after) and the 1,000-event scan cap. It does not add anything for `type` filtering or `project_id` beyond what the schema already states.

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 opening line names the resource (projects and listings) and the fact that this is a change/event feed, which an agent can map to list_events without opening the schema. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list', relying on 'Changes to...' and the title 'What changed' to convey the operation, so it is clear but slightly indirect.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away: 'For the current state of a project, get_project and list_listings are cheaper.' It also explains the pagination workflow (first call scans from the start or a cursor; pass next_cursor later to read only newer events), which is the key usage decision for this tool.

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