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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the ordering ('newest first'), the default look-ahead/look-back window (6 months, capped at 24), and the kinds of changes tracked (started, ended, fee or area changed).

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the filtering and windowing details. Efficient, with no filler, though the parenthetical enumeration of change types makes it slightly dense.

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-value explanation is correctly omitted. The description covers scope, ordering, default window, and optional council filtering, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly; only cross-references to sibling tools are absent.

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 baseline is 3 regardless. The description's '6 by default, at most 24' restates what the schema already encodes via default text and maximum=24, so it adds little new parameter meaning.

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 resource (licensing schemes proposed, starting soon, or recently changed) and the temporal framing (newest first), which is a specific and non-tautological statement of purpose. It is clearly distinct in spirit from siblings like list_council_schemes or licensing_coverage, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against them.

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 only implied: the mention of 'schemes proposed or starting soon, and recent changes' hints at when an agent would reach for it, and 'optionally for one council' clarifies scoping. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no reference to the sibling tools it could be confused with.

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