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

The annotations already cover safety traits (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: cursor persistence, following `hasMore`, and handling revisions with identical timestamps.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then pagination guidance, then a source-date caveat. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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, the description carries some return-value burden and does mention `nextCursor` and `hasMore`. It is still incomplete for a change-feed tool because it does not describe the response item shape or the `limit` parameter.

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 clarifies `since` as an ISO timestamp and implies the cursor usage via `nextCursor`/`hasMore`, but it does not describe the `limit` parameter or fully explain the input cursor token.

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 the content and ordering of the feed: chronological first observations and status/date revisions since an ISO timestamp. It is clear enough about the resource, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling catalyst event feed.

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?

It implies usage through the required `since` timestamp and gives pagination guidance. However, it does not state when to use this change feed instead of alternatives such as `catalysts.event`, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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