List Change Event Statuses

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral details: pagination support (page, per_page), pagination metadata in responses, and a required company_id. No contradictions with annotations.

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 moderately sized but marred by internal contradictions and redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose but then introduces conflicting statements, reducing clarity. Could be more concise and accurate.

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?

The description mentions pagination, API version, and endpoint path, but fails to clarify the actual return structure (statuses vs. events). Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing. The contradiction between listing statuses and returning events makes the description incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reiterates that company_id is required and page/per_page control pagination, but adds no new semantic details 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 initial sentence clearly states the tool lists possible change event statuses for a company. However, subsequent sentences say to 'enumerate Change Events' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Change Events,' which contradicts the stated purpose and creates confusion about whether the tool returns statuses or events.

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 provides some usage context (obtain a paginated overview, find IDs, filter) but fails to clarify when to use this versus sibling tools like list_change_events. The mixed messaging about what the tool returns undermines its guidance.

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