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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered outside the description. The description's only real addition beyond that is the ordering guarantee ("newest first"), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It says nothing about pagination limits beyond count or whether older releases are reachable.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the resource and its ordering come first, and the parameter constraint follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 a rich annotation set, a 100%-covered single parameter, and an output schema to describe returns, the description only needs to cover purpose, ordering, and size. It does all three; the remaining gap is when to prefer this over sibling documentation tools.

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 minimum/maximum bounds are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does add one piece of information the schema lacks, the default of 5, which prevents an agent from guessing at the default page size. No guidance on what happens when limit exceeds available releases.

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 ("Samplyn's dated releases") and a return ordering ("newest first"), which lets an agent immediately tell this apart from doc-oriented siblings like get_guide or get_faq. The verb is only implied by the name get_changelog rather than stated in the description, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching release history, but the description never states when to reach for this versus get_overview, get_guide, or search_samplyn. No exclusions, no prerequisite conditions, no alternative routing.

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