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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that changes are dated quotes, that printed_differently marks wording changes, that the data is free to read but has reuse restrictions, and that a key is one reader's own use. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail rate limits or exact response format.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core definition of a change. The licensing and reuse restrictions are important but somewhat lengthy; they could be trimmed. Overall, every sentence earns its place, though the legal language could be more concise.

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 2 params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the semantics of a change, the printed_differently flag, and usage restrictions. It doesn't describe the output structure, but since there's no output schema, a brief note on return format would help. Still, the description is strong for the tool's complexity.

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 context about what 'company' means (domain or name) and that one company per call is allowed, which aligns with the schema. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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 returns dated changes to one company's list, derived from two readings, and explicitly distinguishes it from claims about relationship timing. It names the resource (a company's list) and the verb (get changes), making it distinct from siblings like as_of or changes_across.

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 explains what a change is and what it is not, which helps an agent decide when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead', but the context of 'one company's list' and the sibling names (changes_across, as_of) imply the scope. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with changes_across.

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