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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is settled. The description adds only that the changes are Gridly-generated and that the returned ids feed undo_change; it says nothing about window size, ordering, or whether results are paginated/limited, which matters for a 'recent changes' 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?

A single sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the downstream consumer of the ids appended. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it discloses just that ids are included — not what else a change record contains (timestamp, entity, actor). Safety is covered by annotations, but the undocumented 'limit' and thin return shape leave real gaps for a listing 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 description coverage is only 50%: 'store' is documented inline, but 'limit' (default 20, max 100) has no explanation anywhere. The description does not mention either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit and only loosely implies multi-store scoping via 'the user's stores'.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Lists recent changes Gridly made to the user's stores') and contrasts implicitly with undo_change, so the agent can place it without opening the schema. It stops short of specifying what kind of changes (products, orders, settings) are recorded, which leaves the resource somewhat abstract.

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 clause 'with ids that undo_change accepts' establishes a clear workflow: call this to discover ids, then pass them to undo_change. That is useful routing context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the adjacent list_scheduled_changes / cancel_scheduled_change pair.

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