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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: cursor-based continuation semantics and the default 24-hour window when cursor is omitted. It does not describe rate limits, ordering, or output shape, but with annotations carrying safety and an output schema present, this is strong.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, how to continue with the cursor, and why to prefer it over alternatives. Front-loaded with the core purpose and free of 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?

The description covers the essential behavior — delta semantics, cursor continuation, default window, and cost motivation — which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The only gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which prevents a 5.

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 50% — 'cursor' is documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description adds meaningful semantics for cursor ('from the previous reply', omit for last 24 hours) but does not explain the limit parameter. Given partial coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (list) and resource (listings that were listed, changed, or removed), making the delta/change-detection purpose clear. It does not name a sibling tool, so it falls short of the 5 anchor that requires sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage context — 'poll this instead of re-reading the inventory' and 'send back the cursor... omit it for the last 24 hours' — which tells the agent when and how to use it versus alternatives. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so not a 5.

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