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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists changes with optional filters, offering no information about return format, pagination, filtering details, ordering, or read-only guarantees. This leaves substantial behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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, direct sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently states the core action and the availability of filters, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only four words. It does not describe the response shape, parameter combos, or edge cases, leaving an agent without enough information to reliably invoke the tool beyond a simple unqualified call.

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. 'Optional filters' vaguely indicates the parameters act as filters, but it fails to explain the meaning of search, status, risk_level, or change_type. The enums in the schema provide some hints, but the description adds no specific parameter-level semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'changes' and notes 'optional filters,' clearly identifying the tool as a retrieval operation for change records. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_change (create), change_risk_assess (assess), and change_stats (analytics), which 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 phrase 'optional filters' implies a search/listing use case, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like change_stats or test_evidence, and no exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is only implied.

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