Get changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the feed is 'signed' (an authenticity/trust property not visible in annotations) and that the cursor is optional, but it does not describe ordering, page size, or how the feed terminates.

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?

One dense sentence with the action and scope front-loaded; the enumerated resource list is long but conveys what is tracked. No redundant or filler content.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema describing return values, the description only needs to establish the change-feed purpose and cursor mechanics, which it does. Missing minor operational details (ordering, pagination termination) keeps it from a 5.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as an opaque signed cursor. The description only echoes that the cursor is optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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States a concrete verb (track) and resource (added/changed/withdrawn/removed offers in Sourcey's signed change feed), which is clearly distinct from sibling search_offers and compare_offers. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the change-feed framing is unambiguous enough for selection.

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?

The phrase 'after an optional cursor' implies the pagination workflow (call, then feed the returned cursor back in for the next page), which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling search tools or any preconditions for the first call.

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