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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns availability only, cursors last 24 h, and the polling cadence is prescribed. No contradiction with the 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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states cost and purpose, and subsequent sentences add behavioral and usage detail efficiently.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return behavior, cursor semantics, and polling guidance. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the cursor lifetime (24 h) and clarifying the pay-to-get-details relationship, which helps an agent reason about the cursor 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?

The description names a specific verb-plus-resource: initialize a watch cursor or check for new risk/lifecycle events for one to five mints. It also distinguishes itself by emphasizing the free, availability-only nature versus the paid check that returns details.

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 explicitly frames the intended use case: 'Use it to watch held mints without paying; buy details only when it reports new events.' It also gives operational guidance to poll every 15 s or slower, though it does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative.

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