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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description is free to add interpretation rules — empty result meaning, window completeness, the three-signal meaning of `disputed`, `applies_from: unknown`, units listed by name only, and an explicit 'not legal advice' caveat. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations, though some of it describes output semantics rather than tool behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is long and repetitive — the window is asserted in sentence one and re-asserted in sentence three, and the dense dispute/applies_from passages read as output documentation that the output schema could carry. Substantively useful, but not tight.

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 whose output encodes disputes, watch windows, unknown application dates, and single-signal units, the description covers every interpretive trap an agent would hit, and the output schema handles the structural shape. An agent can consume the result correctly without external documentation.

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%: both `act` (with its `corpus/key` form pointing at list_acts) and `location` (canonical string like `AR 50`) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: it returns every recorded change to one top-level provision, ordered newest first, with the covering window. The scope ('one top-level provision') separates it implicitly from a cross-provision tool like changes_since, but no sibling is actually named, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative is named (e.g., get_change for a single change, changes_since for a time-window query). The text explains how to read the result, not when to choose this tool over its siblings, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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