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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: results are future-only, sorted soonest first, capped at 50 records, and optionally bounded by days or vendor. It does not explain what happens if more than 50 records match.

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 scope, ordering, categories, purpose, and optional filters are packed into a tight description with no filler. The most important information, what is listed and how it is ordered, is front-loaded.

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?

Given the rich annotations, complete parameter schema, and existing output schema, this description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It covers scope, ordering, categories, defaults, and the record cap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the default and maximum for days and gives vendor examples, but adds little semantic detail beyond the structured 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: listing dated changes from today forward, soonest first, across named change categories. The temporal scope and ordering clearly distinguish it from a general search_changes tool without needing to name siblings explicitly.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool to plan migrations, giving a clear usage context. It does not name when to use alternatives such as search_changes or get_record, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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