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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavior the annotations cannot: result ordering (oldest first) and the cursor-chaining contract. It omits whether cursors expire or how the 500-item cap interacts with polling.

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 sentences, zero padding, and the core contract (incremental, ordered, returns cursor, reuse cursor) is front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

With 16 params, no output schema, and a rich schema, the description covers the essential sync loop and gives a workable return summary (items plus cursor). It does not explain how the many filters compose or how `limit` interacts with the cursor, but that is largely carried by the schema.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all 16 parameters, including the cursor meaning of `after`. The description reinforces the cursor semantics but adds no syntax or combining rules for the many filter parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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 mechanism: an incremental feed returning items added after `after`, oldest first, plus a new cursor. 'Incremental feed' clearly separates it from search_news and list_stories, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Call again with that cursor to get only what is new' communicates the intended polling loop, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when NOT to use it (e.g., historical/filtered lookup belongs to search_news) or how it relates to the seven sibling tools.

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