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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, providing no safety or mutation details. The description does not disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, permissions, or side effects. It describes query content but not operational behavior, leaving significant gaps for a business intelligence tool.

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 organized into purpose, included metrics, exclusions, and examples. While moderately long, each section contributes useful information, and the structure is logical. It is not overly verbose and keeps the most critical information front-loaded.

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 (multiple metric types) and availability of an output schema, the description covers what is returned, what is excluded, and provides usage examples. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., company existence checks) but otherwise provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 both parameters are documented. The description adds value by providing typical examples with real company and country formats, but it does not elaborate on parameter constraints or how they affect the query outcome beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool queries periodic business activity changes for a specific enterprise, focusing on project cooperation such as winning bids, issuing bids, and participating in bids. It also explicitly lists excluded use cases (e.g., tender documents, full market winner lists), which distinguishes it from similar enterprise_change_* tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use (typical question examples) and explicit exclusions (not for non-category metrics or batch filtering). However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so while guidance is present, it lacks direct sibling references.

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