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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the paid cost ($0.015 via x402), the GET endpoint, that cursors are stable across restarts, and the returned fields. It stops short of describing behavior on a stale/invalid cursor or an empty delta, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core content is front-loaded, but the opening fragment 'Only the econ observations printed or revised changed since your cursor (delta o.' is garbled and then immediately restated by the following sentence, so a meaningful portion of the text is redundant rather than additive.

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 single-param cursor tool with no output schema, the description covers bootstrap, incremental fetch semantics, payment model, cursor durability, and the cheap sibling alternative. Only edge-case behavior (invalid/expired cursor, empty results) is unaddressed.

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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by framing since as the next_cursor from your previous call, explaining the bootstrap case, and asserting cross-restart cursor stability — semantics an agent needs to use the cursor correctly.

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 operation (keyset delta of /v1/econ/dashboard) and scope (only econ observations printed or revised since a cursor), returning changed_count plus a new next_cursor. It also names and distinguishes the sibling econ_dashboard_changes (free counts) from the full econ_dashboard, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says to pass since=<next_cursor from your last call>, to omit since once to bootstrap, and to poll the free sibling /v1/econ/dashboard/changes first so you 'pay only when there is something to fetch.' This is the when/when-not/alternative guidance at its clearest.

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