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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: a free daily quota of 300 calls per client and that events are returned newest first, with concrete categories of changes. It omits auth/pass details, but those are in the schema.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The quota note is front-loaded, followed by the event scope and the polling alternative. Slightly unusual ordering, but still appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the definition is largely self-sufficient. It covers purpose, usage, rate limits, event types, and ordering. It could more explicitly mention authentication/pass handling, but that is covered in 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 100%, so both parameters (pass, limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only 'newest first,' which is already in the limit parameter description, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics.

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 the resource clearly as a change feed of recent events and lists concrete event types (venue verdict flips, new suspected honeypots, settlement-integrity changes). It distinguishes the tool from re-reading the scorecard, but does not name or differentiate from sibling tools like settled_status or settled_peek.

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?

Explicitly says to poll this instead of re-reading the scorecard, which provides a clear alternative and use context. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name specific sibling alternatives beyond the scorecard.

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