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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the kind of changes listed (recalls and rule changes) and that each includes a source URL, which goes beyond the annotations. 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example timestamp is useful and the additional detail about source URLs is valuable. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one required parameter, the description covers the main aspects: what is returned (changes with source URLs) and the required input format. It lacks details on response shape or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete.

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 the 'since' parameter format and provides an example, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The 'limit' parameter is optional with a default, but its semantics are not clarified, leaving a gap for agents.

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 purpose: to list recall and requirement changes since a timestamp. It specifies the resource ('recall and requirement changes'), the verb ('list'), and the scope ('since an ISO-8601 timestamp'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on changes over time, while siblings like search_recalls and get_requirement have different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to list changes since a timestamp) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context but no exclusions or guidance relative to sibling tools, so it falls short of a 4 or 5.

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