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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Return' implying a read operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'material' means or how changes are determined. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It leaves ambiguous what 'material' means, what the response format is, and how 'limit' behaves. A more complete description is needed for reliable tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It clarifies the 'horse' parameter as the target horse, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or how it affects results. The description adds partial value but fails to cover all parameters.

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 (Return), a specific resource (Horse Truth change events), and scope (for one horse). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like horse_rankings (rankings) and resolve_horse (resolution), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from horse_intelligence.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving change events for a single horse, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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