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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral nuance: the cursor is independent from legacy room events, and current permissions are enforced even against previously granted recipients. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 very short, with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Each sentence contributes context, though the phrasing is terse enough that some meaning is left implicit.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important gaps: what the tool returns, how the cursor should be advanced or initialized, and how this relates to sibling tools like read_portable_event. The permission caveat is useful, but an agent still lacks enough to call this tool confidently.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'cursor' parameter's meaning, format, how to obtain an initial value, or what default 0 represents. It only says the cursor is separate from legacy room events, which is a scope statement rather than actionable parameter guidance.

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 ('Resume') on a specific resource ('your portable-event stream') and explicitly separates it from legacy room events, which helps distinguish it from sibling get_events. However, 'portable-event stream' is left as unexplained domain jargon, so an agent may not know exactly what the returned resource represents.

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 implies that this tool is for portable events and not legacy room events, but it never names an alternative tool or states a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use condition. The separation is helpful context, but the agent must infer the routing decision.

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