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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only query, does not mention pagination, rate limits, or ordering, and only implicitly signals read behavior through the word 'Änderungen'.

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 short sentences with the time scope front-loaded and per-parameter notes following. Efficient, though the mixed-language phrasing and the split across two lines make it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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 explained, and all three parameters are covered. What is missing is the usage context (when to prefer this over the sibling tools) and any behavioral disclosure, which is a real gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it gives the valid range for `days` (1–90), explains `service` as an optional substring match on the service name, and lists the accepted `min_severity` values. Only the default of `days` (7) is left to the schema.

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 resource ('Änderungen') and a time scope (last `days` days), which is enough to know it retrieves recent change events. However it never clarifies what kind of change is meant (deployments, config, incidents) and does not distinguish itself from the siblings new_servers or service_status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The severity and service filters are described syntactically but not framed as selection criteria.

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