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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (each change paired with its source, drawn from the same log as /corrections), which is what an auditing agent needs to trust the output. Minor gaps: no mention of result caps or ordering.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the usage cue and input format. The noun phrase in sentence one is dense but every sentence carries distinct information.

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 only two fully-described parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, why to call it, and accepted input forms — enough to call it correctly. Result size, ordering, and pagination behavior are the only unaddressed items.

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 schema already documents both the since format and the optional stack filter. The description restates the accepted timestamp/duration forms and adds '90m' beyond the schema examples, but says nothing about the stack parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a concrete resource set (corrections, new tickets, fix-status changes) and a scope (since a point in time), plus the provenance payload each entry carries. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, whats_new, which an agent could reasonably confuse with a 'what changed' tool.

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?

'Use it to audit what the board changed since your last run' gives a clear usage scenario, and the timestamp/duration note tells the agent how to frame the call. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so the agent must infer when whats_new or todays_specials would be preferred.

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