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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the filtering behavior and the all-APIs scan option, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the output format. This leaves some behavior ambiguous, though the tool name implies analysis rather than mutation.

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 concise, with three short sentences that front-load the main purpose and include key usage nuances without any redundant fluff.

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?

The description covers the core function, scope, and filtering options. It lacks an explicit statement about return values, but since no output schema exists, this is a minor gap. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 schema already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds a useful tip about omitting api_id to scan all APIs, but largely restates the filter options (severity, date) that are already in the schema. Thus it adds only marginal semantic value.

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's function with a specific verb (detect) and resource (breaking changes). It also notes the scope (one or multiple APIs) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like diff_versions and fetch_changelog by focusing on breaking changes detection.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that severity and date filters are available and that omitting api_id scans all APIs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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