Find when something changed

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

Annotations already establish read-only, safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: results include each matching line with version and date, ordered oldest first. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently adds matching behavior, output shape, ordering, and representative search terms. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the rich annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what is searched, what the output looks like, and the ordering. Minor gaps such as empty-result behavior or case sensitivity are not critical enough to lower the score further.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'text' is a search term with examples like API name, option, 'deprecated', or CVE, but it does not explain the 'package' and 'ecosystem' parameters beyond what their names and the schema's ecosystem enum already convey.

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 states a specific verb ('Finds') and resource ('versions whose release notes mention a term'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also adds concrete examples and output details that distinguish it from sibling tools like changes_between and release_notes.

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 a clear use case: search release notes by term to see when something was added, deprecated, or removed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over changes_between or release_notes, nor does it mention exclusion criteria.

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