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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short. It never states ordering, whether results are paginated, how 'detected' regressions are produced, or whether any permission/scope is required beyond 'caller's account'.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource statement front-loaded and the filter hint trailing. No filler, though the second sentence is thin enough that it could have carried more substance at the same length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool is a simple two-optional-param list. Still, nothing clarifies result ordering, pagination behavior via 'limit', or what constitutes a regression, which an agent needs to call this confidently.

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 for both parameters. It explains only endpoint_id as a filter and says nothing about 'limit' (default 20), so half the parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 ('List') and resource ('detected schema regressions') scoped to 'the caller's account', which cleanly separates it from the sibling list tools for endpoints/incidents/channels. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the detection-oriented sibling openapi_diff, leaving a small ambiguity about which tool surfaces regressions.

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 offers no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives. 'Optionally filter by endpoint_id' describes a parameter, not an invocation context, so the agent gets no routing signal beyond the tool name.

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