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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: newest-first ordering, attribution of who made each change, whether it can be undone, and the fact that undo/redo reversals themselves appear unless includeReversals is false. This meaningfully expands what an agent knows before calling.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the core operation, then covers scope, ordering, actor/undoability, follow-up usage, and the reversal caveat in two sentences. Every clause earns its place and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return value semantics, and it covers the essential items: ordered entries, actor, undoability, an id for undo/redo, and reversal inclusion. All 8 optional parameters are already fully documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without description-level parameter detail. The description adds value by linking the returned id to undo_change/redo_change and by giving concrete meaning to includeReversals ('Reversals are listed too unless includeReversals is false'), which goes slightly beyond the schema's bare boolean definition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List recent changes to the household') and immediately disambiguates what counts as a change: budget assignments, transaction edits, and category/account/payee/goal/rule/recurrence/tag changes. This clearly sets it apart from sibling state-returning tools like list_transactions or list_accounts.

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 clearly conveys that this is the change-history / Recent Moves view and explicitly tells the agent to use the returned id with undo_change / redo_change. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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