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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: results are in publication order rather than semantic-version precedence, this is not an upgrade safety assessment, backports may appear, and an unknown baseline surfaces in data.status rather than being silently treated as no changes. That is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through prerequisites, defaults, and caveats in a logical order with no filler sentences. It is slightly dense and long-winded for six parameters, but every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

For a filtered-list tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs' provenance, scope limits, ordering semantics, edge-case handling (unknown baseline), and pagination. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret the call correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains installed as a version or exact release ID, source_id's default of primary, channel's stable-vs-all behavior, and how to follow offset/limit via data.pagination.hasMore. It adds real meaning, though limit bounds and the agent_slug pattern are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find archived changes published after an installed version or exact release ID. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like coding_agent_releases and coding_agent_detail, which are referenced as sources of input rather than competitors.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to obtain required inputs (agent_slug and source_id from coding_agent_detail), what the source_id default is (primary), and how to widen scope (channel all for prereleases). It also names the comparison constraint (same publisher source and recognizable product stream), which is genuine when-to-use guidance.

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