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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description usefully adds the domain of changes covered and the filtering behavior, but says nothing about ordering, time window, or pagination behavior for what is presumably a recency-ordered feed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the change types and ending with the filter behavior. No filler, though the terse phrasing leaves several behaviors unstated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only partly does (change types, not the shape, ordering, or recency window). Combined with 33% param coverage, it is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent to work around.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the name parameter ('filtered to one package or model'), but limit and ecosystem are left entirely to the schema — ecosystem's enum is undocumented in prose and the default/max on limit is unexplained.

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 resource (latest detected changes) and enumerates the change types: new releases, deprecations, removed packages, AI model price changes, retirement announcements. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_package and package_status, though the verb is implied rather than stated.

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 only notes optional filtering to one package or model; it never says when to use this feed versus package_status or model_info, nor when not to. No prerequisites or alternative routing is given.

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