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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond them by identifying the feed as append-only and listing content categories with concrete deprecation examples, but it omits operational details such as pagination, filtering behavior, or return format.

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 well-structured sentence with the core concept ('append-only change feed') front-loaded. The parenthetical examples are compact and earn their place by illustrating the kinds of deprecations included.

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 should more fully explain what is returned and how to use the filter parameters. It communicates the general content of the feed but leaves 'kind' and 'entry_id' opaque and does not explain pagination or response shape, which is inadequate given only 33% schema coverage.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain the three parameters at all. It never mentions 'kind', 'entry_id', or the 'since' semantics beyond what the schema itself minimally declares, leaving the agent without guidance on how to filter or retrieve specific changes.

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 states a specific resource ('change feed') and enumerates the kinds of changes returned: added/updated entries, health/schema changes, and deprecations. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_alerts or get_trends, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage by framing the tool as an 'append-only change feed' useful for tracking changes and deprecations, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool for change history rather than alerts or trends.

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