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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does so by stating it returns only real change records, excludes data-dictionary noise and demoted items, and clarifies data source. This adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not describe return format or pagination limitations, which are minor given the simplicity of a list tool.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It includes source citation, filtering details, and a reference to the web version, with no redundancy. Well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: purpose, filters, and source. It lacks details on return format or default behavior, but those are not critical for an agent to invoke it correctly. It is complete enough for a straightforward changelog query tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'type' filter's allowed values and the 'version' format, but it does not go beyond that. Since the schema covers the basics, a baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not add major new semantics.

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 tool's purpose: it logs changes across IBM Maximo/MAS 9.x, with specific categories (deprecations, behaviour changes, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to the changelog and even mentions the same data as a website. This is a specific verb-resource pair.

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 explains the optional filters (version and type) and says omitting version gives all 9.x, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives; siblings like deprecation_register or behaviour_history might be better for specific types. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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