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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description aligns by stating it is a 'Mirror of GET /api/agent/{handle}/changes'. It adds behavioral nuance—it performs a 'pairwise delta scan' and reports only 'material changes', which clarifies the nature of output beyond the annotation flags. No contradictions.

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, information-dense sentences. Each sentence contributes: defines the scan method, lists reported fields, and gives an API mirror. No filler.

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 a complete input schema, annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the operation's essence and output characteristics sufficiently. It doesn't explain return structure (covered by output schema) and lacks explicit sibling comparison, but overall is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three params (handle, limit, since), so the schema already documents parameters. The description mentions 'recent snapshots' which relates to 'since' but adds no new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a 'pairwise delta scan over an agent's recent snapshots' and lists concrete fields (score, rank, github_stars, etc.), making it distinct from siblings like compare_agents or get_top_movers. The verb 'scan' and resource 'agent's recent snapshots' are specific.

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 explains the tool's function but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_agent_history or compare_agents. The 'per-agent' and 'delta scan' wording implies usage for change tracking, but no exclusions are given. This is adequate but lacks explicit alternatives.

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