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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the lower bar is met. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the call is cursor-driven and that the result contains a next_cursor to persist — information not in any structured field since there is no output schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the essential cursor-continuation instruction. There is no waste, though the extreme terseness contributes to the undocumented `limit` gap.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should carry more of the burden. It covers purpose, filters, and cursor continuation adequately, but omits the result-shape beyond next_cursor and says nothing about the limit/pagination behavior (max 200), leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 must compensate. It explains the meaning of `since` (events after it) and the purpose of project_id/record_id as optional filters, but it never mentions the `limit` parameter at all, leaving one of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 resource (events: records, replies, claims, submissions, reviews) filtered by a cursor, which is concrete and clearly distinct from read tools like get_record or search. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named collaboration_changes sibling, keeping it below a 5.

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?

It gives a clear incremental-sync workflow (save next_cursor, pass it as since next session), which tells the agent how the tool is meant to be used across sessions. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools for filtering, so it stops short of 5.

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