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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read-only operation, so the description adds useful context beyond that: it lists the event categories observed, states that results are newest-first, and says the list is empty if nothing was observed. It does not describe event record shape or pagination, but it meaningfully improves behavioral transparency.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler, and it front-loads what the tool returns. The long event-type list is slightly dense but each item helps clarify the scope.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers scope, event types, ordering, and empty-result behavior, though it could say more about the shape of returned event records.

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%, and the single CUI parameter is fully documented in the schema, including accepted RO prefix formats. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (company change events) and temporal scope (since tracking began), and enumerates the event types covered. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the resource is clearly different from company lookup, financials, invoices, and FX rate 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?

Usage is implied: an agent would use this to see what changed at a tracked Romanian company. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives or prerequisites.

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