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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the valuable fact that ids feed undo_change, but it says nothing about ordering, recency window, or whether results are paginated.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse to the point of omitting useful scope details.

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?

For a simple read-only list with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and downstream chaining. It leaves gaps around what 'recent' means and how the limit parameter behaves, which the schema alone does not clarify.

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 in the schema while 'limit' is not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter (default 20, max 100).

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 ('Lists') and resource ('recent changes Pridly made to the user's stores') and clarifies that returned ids are the ones undo_change accepts. That is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_scheduled_changes, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 about undo_change implicitly tells an agent to call this before undo_change to obtain valid ids, which is useful chaining guidance. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance versus related siblings such as list_scheduled_changes or compare_periods.

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