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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important semantics: existingMeasurementId does not imply a claim, and path filters affect list totals while summary covers the full window. These are non-obvious behaviors that an agent needs to interpret results correctly. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies read-only). The provided details are valuable and go beyond typical descriptions.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential behavioral details. The structure is logical: what the tool returns, the meaning of existingMeasurementId, and scoping behavior. It is concise yet information-dense, though it could be slightly more structured with bullets, but overall it is efficient.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally describe the response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. It does explain the key output elements (claim tokens, IDs) and window behavior, but it does not mention pagination behavior beyond cursor (which is in schema), error handling, or any side effects. For a low-complexity list tool, this is moderately complete but leaves some gaps an agent might need.

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 descriptions cover 75% of parameters (cursor, pageSize, windowDays), leaving 'path' undocumented. The description compensates by explaining path filter behavior ('Path filters apply to list totals; summary covers the full window') and window semantics ('Fixed reporting windows; 14-day comparisons'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's enum and default descriptions, particularly for path and the interpretation of windowDays.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'detected content changes', and specifies the returned items (manual claim tokens and measured-action IDs). This makes the purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the content type (content changes with claim tokens) is distinct from other get_* tools like get_content_gaps or get_actions, so an agent can infer differentiation without explicit naming.

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 operational constraints (fixed reporting windows, 14-day comparisons, path filter behavior) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context like 'use when you need to audit content changes for a page'. The guidance is implied from the purpose but not explicit, so it earns a mid-range score.

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