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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints: it distinguishes 'effective' vs 'observed' dates, clarifies that term changes are 'observed term changes, not amendments,' and notes routine changes only appear with include_routine. This explains semantics that annotations alone do not cover.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior (dated changes, two modes) and then lists the covered change types in a compact list. No filler words; it is efficient and well-organized for the information it conveys.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at the return shape, but it does not mention pagination, cursor behavior, or result fields. It thoroughly covers scope and filtering semantics but omits output details, making it incomplete for an agent expecting to interpret results.

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 only 38%, and the description compensates partially by explaining the 'by' parameter (effective vs observed) and the 'include_routine' flag, which lack schema descriptions. However, it does not elaborate on 'since', 'until', 'limit', 'cursor', 'dfx_id', or the event_type enum beyond what the schema already lists, leaving gaps for several 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 clearly states that the tool reports dated changes in private credit, enumerating specific types (new borrowers, lenders joining/leaving, markdowns, PIK, maturities, spreads, sponsor-lender pairs) and the two sorting modes (effective date or first-seen). It gives a precise scope but does not explicitly name sibling tools for contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage for private credit change queries and clarifies that routine changes require include_routine=true, but it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like search_capital_changes or search_credit_maturities. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it relies on the reader to infer.

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