list_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering (newest first), the change taxonomy, and that results come from this server's ingest runs, but says nothing about limit/pagination behavior, result caps, or whether it is a pure read.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler; the date format, change taxonomy, and ordering are all front-loaded before the caveat about ingest-run detection.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers filtering semantics and ordering well. The remaining gap is the unexplained limit/source parameters for a tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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, and it partly does: it gives the YYYY-MM-DD format for 'since' and enumerates the change types matching the change_type enum. It leaves 'limit' and 'source' entirely unexplained, so the coverage gap is only partially filled.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (provisions added/modified/removed/restored), plus ordering and detection source. It's clear what the tool returns, but it never contrasts itself with siblings like search or data_status, which an agent would need to disambiguate a change-feed from a general query.

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 only implied through the 'since a date' framing; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of search/data_status as alternatives. An agent can infer this is a what-changed-since query, but nothing confirms the boundary.

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