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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It does: it warns that payloads are untrusted external data and states the seven-day retention window, which is real operational context an agent cannot get from 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action/cursor model, the security caveat, and the retention limit. Front-loaded with the primary function and 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description adds the retention window and trust warning that the structured fields lack. It does not cover the required `id` resource's meaning or pagination termination, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents id, after, and limit, establishing a baseline of 3. The phrase 'after a sequence cursor' reinforces the semantics of `after` but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema's 'Last processed sequence, exclusive.'

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 verb and resource ('Read ordered events') plus the access pattern ('after a sequence cursor'), which is enough to distinguish it from acknowledge_events. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied — you call this to pull events from a stream — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. having an id from a task/lease), and no guidance on how it pairs with acknowledge_events. Minimum viable.

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