List Change Event Statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, which is beyond annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 5 sentences, all relevant and front-loaded. It starts with purpose, then usage, then result format, then pagination details, then required parameter and API endpoint. No redundant information.

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 simple list tool, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, pagination, required param, and API endpoint. However, there is a slight inconsistency: it says 'paginated JSON array of Change Events' but the tool is for statuses, not events. This minor issue prevents a perfect score.

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 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description mentions the required parameter and that page/per_page control pagination, but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. It reiterates basic usage, which is useful but not high-value.

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 Change Event statuses for a specified project', providing a specific verb (list), resource (change event statuses), and scope (per project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_change_events (which lists events) and list_change_event_statuses_company (which is company-level).

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 says 'Use this to enumerate Change Events when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' This gives clear use cases. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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