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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description builds on this by adding that each change links to before/after snapshots with origin proof. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then adds a concise detail about the output. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (changes with links), scope (all politicians), and examples. It could mention pagination or default limit, but the schema partially covers those.

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?

The schema covers only 50% of parameters (since has a description, limit does not). The description adds no information about either the 'limit' or 'since' parameters, leaving the undocumented 'limit' param entirely unexplained. This does not compensate for the schema's partial coverage.

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 clearly states 'Get recent changes detected across all politicians' with specific examples like 'position shifts, website updates, new data.' It distinguishes itself as a global changes feed, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like politics_timeline or politics_candidate_feed.

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 description implies usage for checking recent changes across all politicians but does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. It suggests a broad scope ('across all politicians') but never tells the agent when to prefer this over per-politician tools.

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