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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds ordering (most recently updated first) and that each note links to its full text. It does not mention limits or pagination, which is a minor residual gap.

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 that front-loads the resource and ordering, then the optional filters. No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description needn't explain return values. It covers filtering, ordering, and the link to full text, leaving only pagination/size limits unstated.

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 both `since` and `platform` are already documented in the schema with format and enum details. The description restates their meaning at a high level without adding syntax or edge-case guidance, matching the baseline 3.

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 specific verb (lists) and a precise resource (Invokary's dated notes on changes to platform submission rules), plus ordering and filter scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_platform_requirements or list_platforms, which concern requirements/entities rather than change notes.

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 gives clear context for use: retrieving dated change notes, most-recent-first, optionally narrowed by platform or date. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous.

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