Daily AI/dev API breaking-changes digest

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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the content scope of the digest (incidents, deprecations, pricing changes, MCP breaking changes) and that it is free, but says nothing about freshness semantics, size, or whether history is bounded.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the digest contains, then when to use it, then a call example. No filler, and nothing important is buried.

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 no-required-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what the agent needs to decide and call it. There is no output schema, so a brief note on return shape (e.g. entries grouped by date) would have closed the last gap.

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 100% — the single date parameter is already documented as 'YYYY-MM-DD; omit for the latest issue'. The description's example call ('{} for the latest, or {"date":"2026-10-14"}') restates the same default behavior with concrete syntax, adding a small amount of value beyond the 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Daily digest of AI/dev API incidents, model deprecations/retirements, pricing-page changes and breaking MCP server changes') and states the 'free' qualifier. It is clearly broader in scope than the sibling tools check_api_status or check_model_deprecation, but it never names them, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Use for a once-a-day catch-up instead of polling' tells the agent the intended cadence and implicitly rules out the polling-style siblings. It gives a clear context for use but stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when this aggregation is the wrong choice.

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