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

Annotations already declare readOnly/closed-world/idempotent, yet the description still adds real context: the record shape returned (before/after/reason/status/via), the enumerations of the "via" field, and the notable edge case that "via" is null while a change is still open. That null-while-open rule is exactly the kind of behavioral detail that prevents misinterpretation, and with no output schema it carries extra weight.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb "List" and the payload spelled out inline; no filler. The parenthetical and semicolon structure is dense but readable, and the scoping caveat is placed where it will be read.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the remaining burden is describing what comes back — which it does at the field level, including the open-change null case. Only return ordering/pagination behavior is left unstated, a minor gap given limit is documented in the schema.

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 100% and all three parameters (limit, status with a nine-value enum, site_id) are described in the schema itself. The description adds no filtering or format semantics beyond that, 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 a specific verb and resource ("List proposed and decided changes"), scopes the resource to ads and posts, and enumerates what comes back (before, after, reason, status, via). It is clearly distinguishable from get_change/get_fix_changes only by implication (list vs. single), since no sibling is named.

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 "Read only; approval happens in Vibeking" tells the agent this is the inspection path and that approving/deciding is out of scope here, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to pick this over get_change, get_fix_changes, or list_issues, nor when a status filter is warranted.

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