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 explicitly states 'Read-only,' discloses the change categories, the 'newest first' ordering, and the optional trade narrowing. This is good behavioral disclosure for a read-only monitoring tool, though it does not describe response shape, pagination, or edge cases like unknown states.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then gives a motivating use case, and ends with a clear safety signal. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, ordering, filtering, and read-only nature. It omits the 'status_change' enum value from the prose and gives no example of returned rows, but the schema already documents the enum and all parameters. This is nearly complete for an agent to decide whether to call the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context linking categories to real monitoring questions ('which contractors lost standing', 'who is newly licensed'), which helps map meaning, but it does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific resource ('licences that lapsed, were reinstated, or appeared for the first time') and a specific verb/resource ('what changed lately across a state'), distinguishing it from a single-lookup history tool. It also defines the ordering and optional filtering. This is specific enough for an agent to understand exactly what the tool returns.

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 says when to use it: 'Answers the monitoring question a single lookup cannot -- which contractors lost standing this month, or who is newly licensed in this trade.' This gives clear use-case guidance and indirectly contrasts with the sibling check_license_history, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or say 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.