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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing cursor-based incremental retrieval and that a next_cursor is returned, which tells the agent this is a paginated, repeatable read. It omits rate limits, auth requirements, entry format, and what happens when the cursor is stale or invalid.

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?

Two short clauses with the resource named first and the usage pattern second; every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core cursor contract but leaves the second parameter and the response shape (beyond next_cursor) undocumented, so it is only minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `since` as a cursor for retrieving only new entries, which is genuinely useful, but `limit` is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 specific verb+resource ('Haven updates feed (changelog)'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling subscribe_updates/unsubscribe_updates, which would be the natural point of confusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives an incremental-fetch recipe ('Pass since=<cursor> to get only new entries'), which implies the polling use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer subscribe_updates instead, and no statement of whether the feed is public or requires auth.

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