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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is low; the description nonetheless adds substantial non-obvious behavior: nothing is withdrawn automatically, a correction only flags dependents for review, the lookback varies by plan (Free 7 days to Developer 180), titles are shown only where permitted, and quota semantics (one call, rejected argument is free).

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but front-loads the purpose and routes to alternatives before the parameter and quota details. Every sentence carries operative information (window depth, paging absence, quota cost) rather than filler, though the run-on sentence structure makes it slightly harder to scan.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, and the description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: scoping (public, newest-first), depth limits, plan-dependent window, no paging, quota cost, and display restrictions. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds real value by explaining that limit counts from the newest, that there is no paging so limit=50 should be requested to see the whole window, and that locale translates titles. It does not add new syntax beyond that, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (public corrections about published content) and ordering (newest first), and immediately bounds the set: taken-down changes plus changes/dossiers with corrected evidence. It names the sibling tools it must not be confused with, so an agent can separate it from get_change_history and list_changes without reading any schema.

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?

Gives two concrete positive use cases ('check whether something you read earlier was corrected', 'audit AiSeek's error record') and two explicit exclusions with the alternative named for each (get_change_history for one change's evidence, list_changes for new changes). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both fully specified.

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