Notes for one version

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the source is a changelog or GitHub release, the version defaults to latest, and output includes the release date and link while filtering out commit/PR noise. This goes beyond what annotations state.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first (one version, default latest), followed by sources and output characteristics, and then the filtering detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description is sufficient: it names inputs implicitly, clarifies defaults, and describes return content. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, which was already penalized under usage guidelines.

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-level descriptions cover ecosystem and max_chars, but package and version have none. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the tool fetches notes for 'a package' and 'one version', making those parameters understandable. It doesn't add much detail for max_chars or ecosystem, so it only partially fills the 50% coverage gap.

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 action: retrieving release notes for one version of a package, with the default being the latest. The phrase 'one version' clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools changes_between and search_changelog, which obviously cover diffs or search.

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 use for a single version's notes via 'one version' and 'default the latest', giving clear context. However, it never explicitly names the sibling tools or explains when to use those instead, so the agent is left to infer the routing logic.

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