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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest context by naming output fields and the minimum-date filter, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or how diff status is computed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and free of filler. It packs the supported filters and key output highlights into a compact, readable form.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. It lacks only an explicit pointer toward when to use raw changefeed siblings, and it leaves limit/pagination details to the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description. The description adds minimal extra semantics by mapping 'type' to contentType, 'slug' to filtering, and 'since' to a minimum date, but it adds nothing about the limit parameter. This meets the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb ('Interroge') and names a resource ('changefeed machine'), then lists the available filters and included result fields. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_changefeed, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 this is the filtered, semantic changefeed view by mentioning filters and 'type de changement sémantique', but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over get_changefeed or get_ndjson_feed, nor gives any exclusion conditions.

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