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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that results include the date, affected tools, and count, and that filtering and limiting are optional. It does not state ordering, default limit behavior, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, though 'record' strongly implies a non-mutating query.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by concrete examples and then the parameters. The trailing 'and limit' fragment is slightly awkward, but the description avoids unnecessary words and earns its place.

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 filtered-read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential content—dates, affected tools, and counts—as well as the optional filtering behavior. It lacks order and default-limit details, but those are minor gaps given the low complexity and the presence of an output 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?

The schema has zero property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'tool' is an optional filter by tool name, but the limit parameter is only mentioned as 'and limit' without explaining that it controls result count, its default value, or any maximum. This is not enough to fully compensate for 0% schema 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 identifies the tool as the dated changelog for the data this server sells, and it lists concrete change types such as rule flips, label fixes, and duplicate removals. It lacks a direct action verb like 'list' or 'return,' and it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the resource and scope are specific enough to be unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied: call this tool when you need a historical record of data changes, optionally filtered by tool name and limited in count. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name any alternative tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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