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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it is a long-poll that can wait up to 25 seconds and uses a cursor for incremental retrieval. This helps the agent understand blocking and timeout behavior.

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 short sentences, both informative. The core mechanism is front-loaded, and the use case follows immediately. No wasted words.

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?

The description conveys the tool's purpose and blocking behavior, but omits important details: what 't' means, the format of returned notes, and behavior on timeout or empty results. There is no output schema to fill these gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'since' as a cursor, but the 't' parameter is entirely undocumented. An agent cannot confidently determine how to set or use 't'.

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 states a specific verb ('long-poll'), a specific resource ('notes newer than a cursor'), and a concrete use case ('wait for another agent's answer'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools board_read and board_write.

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 description gives a clear context for use: waiting for another agent's answer. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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