package_changes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses ordering, handling of releases without notes, withdrawn-release flags, pagination, truncation, and how to retrieve truncated content. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool the disclosed behaviors are sufficient.

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 front-loaded, opening with the core purpose before adding behavioral details. Every clause earns its place: ordering, empty-notes behavior, withdrawn flags, paging, truncation, and parameter usage all appear without redundancy or filler.

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 6 parameters, a rich behavior set, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed to decide when to call the tool and how to invoke it correctly. Return-value structure is reasonably delegated to the output schema, and the usage guidance plus behavioral notes make the description complete.

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 does for the key parameters: `since` and `until` are explained in context, and `max_chars` is explicitly tied to raising the note-length cut. `include_prereleases` is not described, but its name and default are self-explanatory; overall the description adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb (returns maintainer notes) and a precise resource (release notes between two package versions), and adds distinctive behaviors (oldest-first, withdrawn-release flagging, no-notes handling). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like package_versions or search_packages.

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 gives an explicit usage context: call before upgrading a dependency, with the installed version as `since` and the target as `until`. It also explains when to omit `until`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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