changes_by_entity

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond it: exact match, case-insensitivity, and the reverse-index nature of the lookup. It does not mention output ordering or pagination, but for a straightforward read-only lookup this is acceptable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core concept, and every sentence contributes meaning: what it does, matching behavior, and when to use it. 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?

For a simple lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context: purpose, identifier types, matching behavior, and usage trigger. It could mention pagination or result contents, but it is not a critical gap for this tool.

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 both 'kind' and 'name' well. The description reinforces exact-identifier semantics and case-insensitivity but adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 uses a specific verb/resource framing: 'Reverse index: every change touching one exact identifier' and enumerates supported identifiers (CVE, CRD, feature gate, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_changes or get_release, which are broader or differently scoped.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this when you have a specific identifier... and want to know what changed around it,' giving a clear use case. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficiently clear versus the sibling tools.

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