Get Zendesk changes (changelog, release notes, announcements)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that results are aggregated from two distinct domains and that each item carries a change_type taxonomy (breaking_change, deprecated, beta, eap, etc.), dates and lifecycle. It does not discuss rate limits or freshness, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense but efficient sentences, with the core value proposition ('What changed and when') front-loaded. The parenthetical source lists are long but earn their place by mapping to the feeds enum.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing the shape of returned items (change_type values, dates, lifecycle). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and an 80%-covered input schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though source/ordering semantics (how merged results are sorted) remain unstated.

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 80%, so the schema already documents feeds, limit, query, since and locale. The description reinforces the feed concept by naming Announcements, Developer updates, Release notes and What's new, but adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Zendesk changes) and precisely identifies the merged sources: developer.zendesk.com changelog plus the support.zendesk.com 'Zendesk updates' feeds. It is distinguishable from search_developer_docs and search_help_center, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_feature_lifecycle despite mentioning lifecycle data.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never states when an agent should pick this over get_feature_lifecycle or search_developer_docs, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the topic coverage alone.

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