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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job by explicitly disclosing the stateful side effect: 'Advances the delta cursor, so each call reports only what changed since the previous call.' This is a critical behavioral trait beyond the schema. It does not cover error handling or authentication, but the core stateful behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 compact, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The only minor extra is the 'agent-native version of the demand report' phrase, which is short but not essential.

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 explains the core result and the stateful side effect, which is essential given the lack of an output schema and annotations. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned data (e.g., provider IDs vs. full provider objects), does not mention what happens if the id is invalid, and does not guide selection among related sibling tools such as run_saved_search.

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 only 50% because the required id parameter has no schema description, and the tool description does not mention id at all. The description also does not clarify how context should be used despite the schema explaining it. The description adds no parameter-level 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 identifies the resource (a saved search) and the specific result (providers that newly match criteria since the last check). It does not state an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' and it only implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like run_saved_search and whats_changed.

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?

The description gives clear context about delta-based behavior ('since you last checked,' 'only what changed since the previous call'), so an agent can infer when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as run_saved_search for full current results, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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