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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it is bounded, resumable via cursor, and safe for MCP use without holding long-lived streams. It does not go into rate limits or output format, but the annotations and output schema cover most safety and result structure needs.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second explains the intended usage pattern. Every clause earns its place.

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 has 5 fully documented optional parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's role, cursor behavior, and bounded nature, while the schema and output schema cover parameter details and return values. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mainly clarifying that 'since' should be the returned next_cursor from a previous call. This is helpful context but not a significant addition because the schema already describes 'since' as 'Optional previous next_cursor, ISO 8601 timestamp, or Unix epoch seconds.'

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 function: 'Poll recently ingested macro announcement changes with a resumable cursor.' It uses a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('macro announcement changes'), and distinguishes itself from streaming release events by positioning itself as 'the bounded MCP-safe companion to the release-event stream.' This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like latest_announcements or release_calendar.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use the returned next_cursor as since on a later call instead of holding an unbounded streaming tool invocation open.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, and contrasts it with the alternative (unbounded streaming), making the choice clear.

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