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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: the tool is stale ('no longer refreshed'), deprecated, and scheduled for removal. This is valuable behavioral disclosure for an agent deciding whether to rely on the data.

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 short and front-loads the most important information: deprecation and removal date. The final sentence is terse but could be clearer about what the change feed actually contains. 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?

For a deprecated one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential decision context: it is stale and should not be used for building. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return shape or content of the change feed, leaving some ambiguity for an agent that might still call it.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema provides type, default, minimum, and maximum, so the parameter is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Read the bounded canonical change feed') and clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated evidence tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (discover_daystruct_capabilities and compat_check), though 'bounded canonical change feed' remains somewhat jargon-heavy.

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 explicitly says the tool is deprecated, no longer refreshed, and will be removed, and it directs users to specific alternatives for building. This gives clear when-not-to-use guidance and names the correct sibling tools.

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