list_change_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the nature of change events and return type. No contradictions. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond parameters, but overall solid.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by a brief background and a structured parameter list. It is clear but somewhat verbose; the background paragraph could be tighter.

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?

Given the tool has 7 optional parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return. It is sufficiently complete for a list tool, though it could mention pagination explicitly.

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 fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters (since, until, limit, offset, total, team_ids, integration_ids) with clear meaning. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'List all change events with optional filtering' and explains what change events are. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_change_event but does not explicitly differentiate from list_service_change_events or list_incident_change_events, which are more scoped.

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 implies usage by explaining that change events correlate with incidents for troubleshooting, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_service_change_events or get_change_event.

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