list-change-requests

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

'Returns' implies a read-only operation and the description mentions filtering and pagination, which is useful. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does not disclose response structure, ordering, authentication needs, or side-effect freedom beyond the word 'Returns'.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then notes optional filtering and pagination. It contains no filler or redundant detail.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema, the description plus input schema is sufficient for an agent to select the tool and invoke it with the required productId and desired filters. The lack of an output schema and absence of any return-format explanation is a minor gap, but not critical for invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description only restates that filtering and pagination are optional, adding no additional parameter-level meaning.

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 specifies a verb ('Returns'), a resource ('Change Requests'), and a scope ('of a Product'). This distinguishes it from singular get-change-request and from mutation/update/delete siblings in the tool list.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-change-request for a single Change Request, or when filtering is preferred over plain listing. The description implies usage context only through the resource name and scope.

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