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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds valuable context: the tool returns drift events between successive probes, ordered newest first, and describes the content of events. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Tool-schema and protocol-version drift events'), provides a usage purpose, and includes ordering. Every part is essential and there is no waste.

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 low complexity (no output schema, 2 optional parameters with clear descriptions), the description covers the main idea adequately: it explains what the tool returns and its purpose. It does not specify response format or pagination, but the implied list of events is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 input schema has 100% coverage and each parameter is well-described (slug: restrict to one server, limit: max events with default and bounds). The description adds ordering info ('newest first') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters themselves.

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 drift events between successive probes, detailing what each event includes (added, removed, or changed tools and when). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_server_history by focusing specifically on schema and protocol-version drift, and explicitly mentions the use case of spotting breaking changes.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to spot breaking changes in a server you depend on.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the given context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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