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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, closed-world read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (matching changelogs plus a `url_schema` template) and explaining exactly how to substitute `:slug` and `:locale` to build a link. It does not mention pagination limits or how the query string is matched (title vs. body), which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short blocks: purpose first, then the return/URL-construction caveat, then the alternative routing. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it does) is front-loaded before the mechanical URL detail.

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, the description need not enumerate return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile; what it does supply — the `url_schema` linking recipe and the alternative-tool pointer — is the non-obvious part. It is slightly incomplete on search scope (which fields the keyword matches) and whether label_ids intersects with or replaces the query.

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 all four parameters (query, page, per_page, label_ids) are already documented, including the label ID sourcing from list_changelog_labels and the per_page maximum. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 opening line gives a specific verb (search) and resource (changelogs) plus the mechanism (by keyword), which immediately separates it from get_changelog (single fetch) and list_changelogs (unfiltered listing). An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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 final sentence explicitly routes the no-query case to list_changelogs, which is the most likely confusion among the many changelog-related siblings. It does not address the get_changelog case (known slug/locale) or how label_ids relates to a text query, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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