Watch for new risk events (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real operational traits: it returns availability only (not event details), the cursor expires after 24 h, and there is a minimum poll interval. Those are the facts an agent needs to avoid misusing it.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with cost and purpose, each carrying a distinct operational fact (price, return shape, TTL, poll rate, usage rule). 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 supplies the return contract (availability only vs paid details), cursor lifetime, and polling guidance. An agent can call this correctly without further inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so both mints and cursor are already documented in the schema, including the opaque-cursor and no-new-events semantics. The description only restates the 'same one to five mints' scope, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: initialize a watch cursor or check for new documented risk/lifecycle events across one to five mints. The free-vs-paid split and the 1-5 mint scope make it immediately distinguishable from sibling watchlist/risk tools.

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 routes usage: watch held mints for free, poll every 15 s or slower, and only buy the paid detail check when this reports new events. This is a when-to-use plus when-to-pay rule, not a vague suggestion.

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