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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the since value can be an ISO time or a pagination cursor encoded as (ts type id op), and strikes are aggregated into their event. It does not cover pagination size, ordering, or output shape, so it adds partial value.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its problem is density and jargon ('strikes roll up into their event'), not length; the cursor tuple is compactly specified.

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 four-parameter, read-only change-feed tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits limit, types, and format behavior and does not explain the response set. It covers the required cursor/time mechanism but not enough for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must define all four parameters. It explains that since accepts an ISO timestamp or cursor tuple, which is valuable, but it says nothing about limit, types, or the tsv/json/md format enum. That leaves three parameters with no semantics beyond their names.

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 frames the tool as answering 'What changed since...' and names the two inputs (ISO time or cursor), but it never states what kind of objects are being changed or what the returned set represents. It is more than a bare restatement of the name, yet still vague against siblings like history or list_calls.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool is named; it only implies this is an incremental feed versus a full listing. An agent must infer the comparison with history, brief, upcoming, and other siblings.

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