List DataLens entries changed in a period

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: output is auto-paginated, and deleted entries are still returned with an isDeleted marker. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs when interpreting 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the audit payload and the isDeleted caveat. No filler. Slightly terse but every clause carries 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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description covers purpose, period scoping, pagination behavior, and a notable return-field detail (isDeleted). The main omission is explicit guidance on time-zone/window edge cases already handled by the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents from_, to, and limit (including the YCLI__HTTP__MAX_ITEMS cap). The description adds no parameter syntax or format beyond what is in the structured fields, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 concrete verb and resource: entries changed in a period, and adds the audit payload (what, when, by whom). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling datalens_entries_revisions_list by its audit framing, though it never explicitly names or contrasts siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the audit/changed-in-a-period framing but never stated: no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to the closest alternative (datalens_audit_entry_permissions_get or datalens_entries_revisions_list). Acceptable but leaves selection inference to the agent.

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