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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description still adds value by stating 'This never approves or publishes a change,' which clarifies the side-effect boundary. However, it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or the shape of the returned change sets beyond the resource name. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the cautionary note is deferred to the end. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple, safe read operation with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, so the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what it returns (change sets), how to filter (by site), and what it won't mHonorer do. It could mention sorting or pagination, but for a list tool, this is not a significant gap.

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 itself must compensate. It mentions 'Optionally filter by site' which maps semantically to siteId and conveys it's optional. The name siteId is self-explanatory and the schema includes its format (uuid). This adds modest value beyond the schema but doesn't discuss filtering behavior or response implications in detail. Baseline 3 is justified.

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 names the exact resource (approved change sets), the action (list), and the scope constraint (already approved), and explicitly states what it does NOT do, which distinguishes it from approval/publishing workflows. The sibling tool get_approved_change is also implicitly differentiated: list vs get.

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 clear context: use it when you need the exact change sets the customer already approved, optionally filtered by site. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the last sentence, 'This never approves or publishes a change,' serves as an implicit exclusion, telling the agent this tool is not for executing approvals. A sibling like get_approved_change would be the alternative for retrieving a single change.

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