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

The description discloses that it advances a delta cursor and reports only changes since the previous call, which is a critical stateful side effect beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also provides pricing details, adding transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 a single information-dense paragraph that starts with the core purpose, then the delta behavior, then pricing. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming the pricing detail; still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it returns (newly matching providers) and the crucial delta-cursor behavior. It lacks error handling or prerequisite details, but for a straightforward read tool it is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema covers only 50% of parameters (context has a description, id has none). The description does not compensate by explaining what 'id' refers to (the saved search ID is implied but not explicit). Since the required parameter lacks documentation in both schema and description, this is a significant 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 states a specific verb-resource pair: reports newly matching providers for a saved search since the last check. It differentiates from siblings like run_saved_search and whats_changed by emphasizing the delta behavior and 'agent-native version of the demand report', which gives clear context.

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 explains the incremental delta behavior and pricing, which implies when to use it (for checking new matches without full re-runs). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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