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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: excerpts-only due to copyright, links to original sources, and the caveat that a build's time reflects when Everloot first saw it rather than Blizzard's release time.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the ordering cue 'Newest first' followed by the payload description. The parenthetical enumerations are informative but slightly verbose; overall tight with minimal waste.

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 re-explained. The description covers purpose, return content type, and key caveats; the only gap is explicit guidance on alternatives and parameter usage.

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 67%, below the 80% threshold, so the description must compensate but doesn't. The filter enum values are effectively echoed by both the schema description and the tool description without adding syntax or format detail, and game/limit receive no description-level elaboration.

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 resource and its contents: newest-first Blizzard blue posts, hotfixes, and new game builds. It's a clear verb-less but well-defined resource ('recent official changes'), though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search or fetch.

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 by the title and content ('recent official changes'), so an agent can infer when it's relevant. However, there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search or search_knowledge.

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