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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add provenance detail — double-reading each change from vendor page or registry, and refusing to attribute user-typed corrections to the vendor. That is genuine behavioral context about data trustworthiness beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then two short sentences on data quality. Slightly folksy phrasing ('a correction somebody typed in'), but every sentence carries information rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description even hints at denominator semantics ('how many tools were in a position to change at all'). Complete for a one-optional-param read feed, with the only real gap being sibling disambiguation.

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% and the single 'days' parameter is already documented in the schema ('How far back, default 30'). The description adds nothing about the lookback window, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (what changed among tools in the INITE Atlas) and enumerates the change types — price, free plan, OpenAPI spec, MCP listing. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling atlas_dataset_changes, which an agent could easily pick by mistake.

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?

Usage is implied: a time-windowed change feed for monitoring vendor tool movement. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as atlas_dataset_changes or atlas_search, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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