recent_admin_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot: the data comes from the audit log and the tool is plan-gated to Enterprise, which is exactly the kind of entitlement constraint an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and source, followed by parameter hints and the plan constraint. No filler, though the value enumeration is slightly list-like rather than integrated.

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 values need not be explained, and the Enterprise gate plus source is disclosed. The gaps are the undocumented `days` and `max_items` parameters and the absence of any default-behavior note (e.g., 7-day window), which matter for a tool whose schema has no descriptions at all.

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 carry parameter meaning. It partially does: it enumerates accepted values for `action` (create, destroy, exported, login, update) and gives examples for `source_type`. But `days` and `max_items` are left completely undocumented, and the 'among others' phrasing makes the value lists non-exhaustive, so compensation is incomplete.

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 names a specific resource (recent configuration changes from the audit log), so an agent knows this is an audit-log query rather than a mutation. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling audit_business_rules, which is also audit-related, 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?

It states a hard prerequisite ('Requires the Enterprise plan'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over audit_business_rules or other siblings, and gives no when-not conditions.

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