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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: changes are dated between checks, changes made and undone between checks are invisible, changed text is never quoted, and failed or missing checks are reported. These are exactly the details an agent needs to interpret reliability and limitations.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences each contribute a distinct operational caveat or coverage rule. Despite the density, there is no filler and the description is appropriately sized for a tool with change-detection semantics.

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?

The description covers scope, time range, tracked-server constraint, detection limitations, output contents, and untracked-server behavior. With annotations and an output schema already present, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is already 100%, including the days range and vendor examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful vendor semantics by specifying that the vendor must be a tracked server and that untracked servers yield a 'not covered' response.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports changes to one tracked vendor MCP server's tool list over a bounded time window, including added, removed, changed, and newly expanded tools. This change-history scope is clearly distinct from the sibling tools' focus on finding tools, server capabilities, or listing tracked servers.

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 usage context: the server must be tracked, the lookback window is 1 to 30 days with a default of 7, and untracked servers return a 'not covered' answer. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_server_capabilities or find_tool, so the guidance is strong but not fully comparative.

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