whatsnew_for_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: sections are bounded (not full text), and pagination semantics ('start_index counts nonempty sections after kind filtering') explain a non-obvious counting rule. It does not mention truncation behavior when max_sections caps results.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then filtering, then the escape hatch to get_docs, then pagination semantics. No redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. For a bounded, paginated, read-only browse tool, the description covers purpose, filtering, pagination counting, and the full-text alternative — everything an agent needs to 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 coverage is 75%, so the schema carries most parameter detail. The description still adds genuine meaning: 'kind' filters release topics, and the exact semantics of start_index (counting nonempty sections after filtering) are clarified in prose rather than left to the terse schema text. The version parameter is left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Browse indexed official What's New sections in document order.' This is clearly distinct from generic doc tools, though the title is null and the description never explicitly says it is scoped to a single Python version (the required 'version' param implies it). Clear but not maximally sharp about scope.

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?

Gives concrete guidance: use 'kind' to narrow release topics, and route to the alternative get_docs(slug='whatsnew/X.Y', ...) when full text is needed, with the exact anchor a caller would pass. It does not state exclusions versus search_docs or list_versions, but the primary alternative is named with a condition.

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