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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavior beyond it: results are ordered newest first, and the period defaults to '90d'. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but the output schema exists to cover return shape, and no contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core resource and ordering while including the only essential default. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only listing tool with two optional parameters fully documented in the schema, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what annotations are, how they are ordered, and the default time window. No critical missing context would prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both 'site' and 'period'. The description's only parameter-related statement, 'period defaults to 90d', merely repeats information already present in the schema's period description. Thus the description adds no meaningful 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 clearly identifies the resource as 'Recorded deploy/change markers' and specifies ordering ('newest first'), so an agent understands this is a read-oriented listing tool. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'list' or 'return', relying on the title, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as record_annotation, though the noun phrase makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use list_annotations versus alternatives like record_annotation or compare_around. It mentions the period default, which is parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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