filter_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a critical constraint (quotes required) and shows query syntax examples, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves, or what error/edge cases exist. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured: a brief purpose statement, an important note about quoting, three illustrative examples, and a compact Args list. Every element earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of page/per_page parameters, the description covers the complex part (query syntax) thoroughly with examples. It does not explain the response structure (handled by output schema) or mention that query is required (in schema). It lacks a note on when to prefer this over get_changes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an 'Args' section explaining each parameter (query as Freshservice filter query string, page, per_page) and enriches the query parameter with examples of valid filter syntax. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 'Filter changes with advanced queries,' clearly stating the verb (filter), resource (changes), and the distinguishing feature (advanced queries). It also provides concrete examples that differentiate it from sibling tools like filter_tickets or get_changes.

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 implies usage for query-based filtering (e.g., 'Query MUST be wrapped in double quotes' and examples of status/approval queries), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_changes for unfiltered lists or when not to use this tool, so it misses the top score.

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