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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: hourly log ingestion, 30-day retention, absence of receipts/approvals/undo, and a visibility limit to changes made as the WordPress user Royally's connection signs in as. It also warns that `target` never contains written values, which matters for privacy expectations.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and every clause carries information (return shape, retention, visibility, param interactions). It is dense — the seven-field enumeration of `outside_royally` is delivered as one long run-on clause, which makes it harder to scan than a bulleted field list would be.

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 no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return shape for both top-level keys and the connection enum, plus retention and visibility caveats. The main gap is paging: `limit` is capped at 200 but nothing says how to retrieve older changes beyond that window, and there is no note that no site-level filter exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: `since` and `limit` apply to both lists, while `authored_by` empties `outside_royally` entirely. That interaction is not visible from the schema and materially affects how an agent constructs a query.

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 with scope: an activity feed across every site in the agency, newest first, split into `changes` and `outside_royally`. It indirectly distinguishes itself from receipt-based siblings by saying these have no receipt, approval or undo in Royally, but it never names `fleet__list_recent_receipts` or `royal-mcp__mcp_list_recent_changes` as the per-site alternative.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: the feed is for seeing what happened, and the note that entries have no receipt/approval/undo hints at when to prefer receipt tooling instead. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling list tools.

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