What changed

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and closed-world, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: 90-day retention, oldest-first scanning, up to 1,000 events per call, default since window, and cursor continuation semantics. These details materially affect how an agent interprets and calls the tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only operationally necessary details about retention, pagination, and alternatives. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 supplies enough return-shape and pagination context: event scanning limits, ordering, cursor reuse, and default time window. It is complete for selecting and correctly invoking this tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds some useful context around cursor continuation and the default since window, but it does not explain the type filters, limit behavior, or project_id scoping beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines the tool as a change feed over projects and listings and explicitly says it returns events. It also distinguishes this from the current-state siblings get_project and list_listings, so an agent can tell when this tool applies.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: use the feed for changes, and use get_project or list_listings instead for current state because they are cheaper. It also explains the cursor workflow for incremental reads, which directly affects how the tool should be called.

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