get_changelog

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns recent policy changes and supports pagination via limit/offset, but it does not mention ordering, time range, or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation. These details are left to the user's inference.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a brief summary sentence, and a focused parameter list. Every part earns its place, and the front-loaded verb phrase immediately establishes the tool's purpose.

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?

With four optional parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the key aspects of filtering and pagination. It does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus siblings, but the name and description make that reasonably clear. Minor omission of output-related context is acceptable given the output 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?

Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates with an Args section that explains every parameter: domain with an example, change_type with a complete list of allowed values, limit with a valid range and default, and offset with its purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description opens with 'Get AI policy change history from the Maango registry,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like lookup_domain and search_domains by focusing on change history across domains.

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 explains what the tool does and how to filter by domain and change type, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Usage context is implied but not directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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