changes

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

Annotations only cover the read-only/non-open-world profile, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: newest-first ordering, the exact fields returned, the dashboard-exclusion boundary, an explicit non-mutation reassurance ('Changes nothing'), and a retention cap ('Only the newest 300 changes are kept'). This goes well beyond what the annotations declare.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return contents, then layers usage, exclusions, and constraints in compact clauses. No sentence is filler; each adds a distinct fact (routing, exclusion, non-mutation, retention).

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?

With an output schema present, return formatting need not be explained, yet the description still names the key fields. Combined with the usage routing, dashboard exclusion, and 300-item cap, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 both parameters (limit, profile) are fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions the returned fields but adds no syntax or format detail for limit/profile beyond what the schema already states, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the changes made through this app') and immediately enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this yields. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by tying directly to the 'undo' tool's ID lookup.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('to find the ID undo takes, or to tell the user what was changed') and gives a clear exclusion ('changes made in the NextDNS dashboard don't show'). The alternative-use routing to undo is spelled out rather than implied.

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