list_changes

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

Discloses it is a GET operation (read-only) and cursor-paginated, but lacks behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. Without annotations, the description carries more weight but still omits important traits.

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 sentence that is concise but omits crucial details. It front-loads the HTTP method and pagination, but could include more information without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It mentions response fields but ignores filtering, sorting, and other behaviors, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The description does not explain any parameters beyond what the schema provides. With only 50% schema description coverage, the tool fails to compensate for four undocumented parameters (min_severity, monitor_type, competitor_id, review_status).

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 states it lists changes using a cursor-paginated feed, with specific response fields. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying 'changes' as the resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limits, or when not to use it.

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