Recent resource changes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds useful behavioral context: the 14-day lookback window, the configuration-change scope, and the returned detail fields. It does not discuss pagination or data availability delays, but for a read-only tool this is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the verb, resource, scope, and time range, and the second gives a concrete diagnostic use case. Every clause adds value.

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 read-only list tool with a small, fully documented parameter set and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, the supported scopes, the time window, and the motivating use case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds context about what the list contains but no new parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Lists configuration changes') with an explicit resource and scope ('to a resource, or to every resource in a resource group or subscription'). It names the exact output fields (what changed, before/after values, who, client), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling log/telemetry tools.

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 line 'Use it to answer "what changed before this broke?"' gives an explicit, concrete use case. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling, so it stops short of the full when/when-not guidance.

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