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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful content categories (human-needed items, updated quests, unread chats) but does not describe result ordering, refresh semantics, or other behavioral details.

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?

The description is very short and front-loads the main purpose before the parameter instruction and content list. The sentence fragments are slightly awkward, but there is essentially no wasted text.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description provides the core purpose and contents. Because there is no output schema, it could do more to explain the shape of the returned what's-new feed, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, and the single `since` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the ISO-8601 format and the `data.next_since` continuation pattern. The description repeats the continuation instruction but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's scope: changed items needing human attention, updated quests, and unread chats. It is not a vague tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish this digest from siblings such as quest_status, list_chats, or chat_summary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'What changed' and by listing the contents an agent would want in a what's-new feed. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative tools.

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