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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral rules: change thresholds, baseline selection, roof-counting conditions, and what does not count as a call change. It also explains field semantics and edge cases such as DOME chip display and afterTip being a quiet note.

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 purpose and parameters are front-loaded, but the description becomes a dense wall of field-level rules and edge cases. Much of this is useful because there is no output schema, but it is not concise and could be better structured.

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 tool's complexity, two parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers change thresholds, baseline behavior, output field interpretation, display rules, and caveats needed to understand the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful clarification beyond the schema, especially that since is compared against the latest board snapshot at or before that instant and that the week's first snapshot becomes the baseline if none qualifies.

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 identifies a specific retrieval operation: games whose published call, roof, window, or kick-window reading moved. It states the returned resource and the core change condition, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_week_board or get_call_history.

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?

It gives concrete usage details for the required since parameter and the optional weekId, including the baseline behavior when no snapshot exists at or before since. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_week_board, get_call_history, or other sibling tools.

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