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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real behavior: the default filter only surfaces items awaiting confirmation, it explains why (over a limit, or a propose-only key), and it notes each item carries a confirmation link. It also enumerates the outcome categories and actor types returned in 'done' mode. Pagination behavior is the only notable omission.

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 the verb, resource, and sort order before the mode distinctions. The parenthetical asides are dense but each carries unique information; nothing is padding.

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 one optional enum parameter, no output schema, and no nesting, the description covers what an agent needs: what is listed, in what order, what the default hides, and what the alternative mode reveals. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on result shape or volume would be the only remaining gap.

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% and the enum is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a point by giving the enum values operational meaning — what 'waiting' actually contains and who/what appears as the actor in 'done' — information the bare schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists changes') scoped to 'this ad account' and adds ordering ('newest first'). The two status modes are spelled out clearly, which separates it from single-item siblings like get_change, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It explains what the default mode returns and what 'done' is for, which implicitly tells the agent when to use each mode. It does not, however, say when to reach for get_change or get_account_health instead, so the routing guidance beyond the status enum is inferred rather than stated.

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