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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds context about the source of the requests ('submitted by end users') but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination or ordering, which are not required given the output schema exists and annotations are strong.

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 three short, focused sentences: purpose, filter option, and usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The most important info (what it does) 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, full schema description, output schema present, and strong annotations, the description provides enough context. It states what the tool returns, how to filter, and when to use it. No critical gaps remain.

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 only parameter 'status' has 100% schema coverage with a clear description of accepted values and behavior when omitted. The description simply repeats 'Optionally filter by status' without adding new semantic detail, so it adds minimal value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists change requests with specific context (submitted by end users on sites you ship). The verb 'List' plus resource 'change requests' makes the function unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_change_request (single item), set_preview_url, and update_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?

The phrase 'Start here to see what people are asking for' gives clear usage context as an entry point for exploring change requests. It also mentions the optional status filter, implying the tool is for broad listing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or say when not to use it.

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