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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it discloses the billing model ($0.01 USDC per call, free on unchanged hash), the read-only nature (implied by polling), and the precise output scope. It also notes there is no free twin, preventing confusion about costs.

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 information-dense but not padded; every sentence serves a purpose (purpose, usage, billing). It is slightly verbose but justified by the tool's complexity. The key loop-primitive usage is front-loaded, and the billing note is clearly separated.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately details the return contents (names entering/leaving READY, state flips, regime changes). It also covers input derivation, cost, and the relationship to the free poll. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 single parameter `since` is documented in the schema, but the description adds critical context by explaining its origin (state_hash from a previous /api/board/state poll), its format (16 hex chars), and its role in the polling loop. This goes beyond the schema's bare definition.

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 it returns changes on the board since a prior state_hash, specifying the exact types of changes (READY pool entries, trend-state/light/leadership/hold-band flips, regime/permission-ladder moves). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the free /api/board/state poll and the broader board tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'This is the loop primitive: poll the free hash, call this only when it moves.' It also explains the free response on unchanged hash and clarifies the relationship with /api/board/state, effectively telling an agent when to call this tool versus relying on the free endpoint.

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