poll_delegate_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: that it is a 'non-destructive cursor read' returning a snapshot 'so far' (i.e., it does not wait), plus the exact return shape. It does not discuss rate limits or retention, but for an annotated read tool this is solid.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the return-shape note. It is efficient, though the parenthetical and inline return object make it slightly compressed rather than maximally readable.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (events list, next_cursor, subscription_active), which is exactly what an agent needs to handle pagination and detect a dead subscription. Combined with 100% schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only explicit sibling routing 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 both parameters (cursor and subscription_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including the meaning of the cursor default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, only restating the cursor semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the events a subscription has recorded so far') and clarifies scope with 'so far', so the agent knows this is a snapshot read rather than a blocking wait. It references the subscription concept but does not explicitly name sibling tools like subscribe_to_delegate or unsubscribe_delegate that establish/tear down the subscription it consumes.

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 rather than stated: the phrase '(non-destructive cursor read)' and 'so far' hint that this is for incremental polling, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about whether it blocks, and no mention of alternative tools for consuming subscription events.

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