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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of returning a 'next' marker for incremental sync adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. It could further discuss rate limits or error behavior but is sufficient with annotations.

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 description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, followed by an alternative usage note. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality, return marker, and a key alternative. It lacks details on pagination semantics (e.g., limit behavior, error cases) but is reasonably complete for its complexity level.

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 description explains the 'since' parameter as an ISO timestamp marker, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not address the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving its behavior undocumented. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool lists new/updated decisions since an ISO timestamp, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the export endpoint for full download, making its purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool (incremental sync) and when not to (full download should use the /export endpoint). This provides clear usage guidance and an alternative, which is excellent for agent decision-making.

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