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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: result ordering (newest first), the enumerated verification event types, and the legacy/alias nature of the endpoint. It doesn't say anything about result volume or how pagination interacts with the offset/limit pair beyond the schema.

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-loads the alias identity and the core operation, then usage, then the alternative, then an example — a sensible order with no padding. The example is compact and earns its place, though the sentence about answering a change question and re-checking an itinerary is mildly redundant with itself.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it supplies purpose, scope, alternatives, and an example. The only soft spot is that it never explicitly states whether new callers should prefer dogpolicies_changes_near over this alias — it's only implied by "kept for older clients".

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the place/near alternative and the radius-ignored-for-areas rule. The description's example ("What changed near Monterey since September?" -> place="Monterey", since="2026-09-01") clarifies how natural language maps to the place/since pair, but the restated outcome list duplicates the enum and adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is right.

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?

Opens by identifying itself as an alias of dogpolicies_changes_near, then states the specific resource (verification events across five outcome types) and scope (within a radius of a town, county, or point, newest first). An agent can distinguish it from dogpolicies_changes_since, which the description explicitly names as the anywhere/everywhere variant.

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?

Gives concrete triggering scenarios ("has anything changed around Tahoe since my last trip?", re-checking a saved itinerary) and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ("Use dogpolicies_changes_since for everything everywhere"). The "kept for older clients" note also signals that new clients should prefer the canonical sibling.

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