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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: free tier is delayed, a Pro key unlocks real-time, and real-time streaming should go through the WebSocket/SSE path rather than this call. It omits pagination behavior, but the limit parameter partly covers that.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and event scope, then the tier/real-time caveat. The event enumeration is dense but each item is informative rather than filler; only slight compression opportunity remains.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what events look like by listing event categories, and it flags the delayed-vs-real-time distinction that affects result freshness. Pagination and ordering are not stated, a minor gap for a feed endpoint.

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%, so all three parameters (limit, address, passport_id) are already documented in the schema with constraints and filter semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline, and the enumerated event types don't map to any parameter.

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 clear verb+resource (latest trust-change events) and enumerates the event categories it surfaces (passport issue/revoke/rescore, wallet bind/unbind, mandate activate/revoke, log anchoring). It distinguishes itself from the real-time path by naming the WebSocket/SSE stream and live_info, though it doesn't contrast against state-listing siblings like passport_list or mandate_list.

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 explicit context: use the WebSocket or SSE stream for real time, and see live_info for the Pro-key delay behavior. It falls short of stating when to use this feed vs. sibling listing tools, but the real-time vs. delayed-feed distinction is actionable.

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