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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). Because no output schema exists, the description carries return-shape information and does so concretely: newest-first ordering and the per-entry contents (actor, method, effect, whether it was undone). It does not describe pagination or truncation behaviour for the 1-100 limit, keeping it below 5.

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 tightly-packed sentence that front-loads the resource and ordering before the entry fields. No wasted words and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the ordering and entry contents an agent needs to interpret results. It is complete enough except for pagination/limit-application behaviour.

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 appId (id or slug, from list_apps) and limit (1-100, default 20) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the specific resource (an app's schema changes) and, via 'schema changes' versus siblings like get_app_schema or get_app, an agent can infer this is the historical log rather than the current schema state. The verb 'list' is only implied by the name, not stated in the description, and no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls 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 implied by the resource: call this to see past schema changes for an app. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of when get_app_schema would be preferable, and no prerequisites stated. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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