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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only query operation but does not disclose any edge cases, required permissions, output behavior, or what happens when a change record has no affected occupations or tasks.

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 very short and contains no wasted words, but it is under-specified as a sentence fragment. It lacks the structure needed to convey usage, parameter details, or behavioral context, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. The sibling list contains several similar find_* tools, and without clearer context or parameter guidance, an agent may struggle to invoke this tool correctly or disambiguate it from alternatives.

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%, and the description adds almost no parameter meaning. It does not explicitly state that 'id' is the change record ID, and 'locale' is entirely unexplained despite being a parameter. The tool name and description weakly imply the role of 'id' but not its format or the purpose of 'locale'.

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 the specific purpose: identifying which occupations and tasks are affected by a change record. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_change (change record details) and find_evidence (evidence lookup), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer to use this tool when it needs affected occupations/tasks for a change record. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like find_evidence or get_change.

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