get_mole_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context that the output consists of observations rather than a verdict, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ordering, absence of results, or output structure.

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 no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusion of trend verdicts is stated immediately after, which is economical and effective.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and what it does not. It could mention output format or behavior on missing history, but the low complexity means nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already documents moleId as 'The mole's unique identifier.' The description only references 'a mole' generically and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return recorded appearance changes for a mole over time.' The qualifier 'Observations only — not a trend verdict' clearly distinguishes it from analysis-oriented siblings like get_mole_analysis or get_condition_progression.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need raw recorded appearance changes over time, not an interpretive trend verdict. It implies but does not explicitly name an alternative for trend analysis, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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