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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it usefully discloses ordering (oldest first), cursor unit (ms), scope, and that it echoes next_cursor. It omits what happens with a missing/initial cursor, auth or rate-limit behavior, and the shape of returned changes.

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?

Extremely front-loaded and waste-free, with the core concept first. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient but slightly clipped, leaving semantics to be inferred.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient; it covers the sync concept and next_cursor echo but leaves the 'kinds' parameter, initial-cursor behavior, and return shape unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% for all three params. The description explains cursor (ms) and implies topic ('per topic'), but 'kinds' is completely undocumented in both description and schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific purpose — 'Incremental sync: changes since a cursor' — with clear semantics (oldest first, global or per topic). It is distinguishable from aggregation siblings like get_digest and get_inbox, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Incremental sync' implies the use case (polling for changes) and 'global or per topic' hints at scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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