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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains what events are covered and severity filtering, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or response structure. The behavior is adequately described for a list tool but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. No extraneous words; the severity explanation is concise yet clear.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose and key filters, it lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or default ordering. Given no output schema and 7 parameters, additional context about result structure would improve completeness.

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. The description adds value by explaining severity levels and giving examples of event types, which goes beyond the schema. It provides context that helps select appropriate filters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a changelog of events (deprecations, price changes, launches) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deprecations by covering broader event types. The verb 'list' and resource 'events' are explicit.

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 hints at when to use it ('filter by severity to find what demands action') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. More direct guidance on selecting this tool over siblings like get_price_history would improve the score.

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