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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the query intent, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what kind of changes are reported, whether any side effects occur, or what the response format is. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that likely reads data.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value, scope of changes, or edge cases. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent guessing about what precisely is returned or how optional parameters affect behavior. This is incomplete for a tool in a family of audit utilities.

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 description reinforces the two required parameters (name as 'capability' and since_ms as 'since a given time'), which aligns with a 50% schema coverage. However, it adds no extra meaning for the optional parameters (npub, dpop_token) and does not go beyond what the schema already states. Since coverage is exactly 50%, a neutral score 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Answer') and resource ('what changed on a capability'), and the temporal qualifier ('since a given time') distinguishes it from other audit siblings like cypher_audit_what_contradicts or cypher_audit_who_authorized. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use it: when a change history over time is needed for a capability. The 'since' phrasing clearly differentiates it from alternative audit tools, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tool names. This is sufficient for typical usage guidance.

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