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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the read token authenticates access and that this is a read operation, implying non-destructive behavior. However, it does not state whether polling advances the cursor, whether events remain queued until acknowledged, or any rate-limit or permission details, leaving important behavioral aspects unclear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and the critical qualifier about the read token is included without padding.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It leaves 'address_id' and 'limit' under-explained, omits polling lifecycle context (e.g., events persist until acknowledged), and does not discuss errors or edge cases. An agent would likely need to infer too much to invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'after' as a cursor and 'read_token' as an authenticating credential, but it does not clarify the role of 'address_id' or the pagination semantics of 'limit' beyond the schema's min/default/max. This is partial compensation for a four-parameter tool.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Read queued events after a cursor,' matching the title 'Poll return-address events.' The verb 'read' clearly differentiates from siblings 'acknowledge_event' and 'create_return_address,' so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use polling versus acknowledging or creating. The description implies the tool is for reading queued events, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing return address.

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