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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each event carries before/after values plus a Kingy page and official source link, which is useful return-shape context, and 'poll' reinforces the idempotent read behavior. It does not state result volume, ordering, or truncation behavior for a potentially large change feed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope sentence, then the return shape, then the usage hint. Dense but every sentence carries information; the long enumeration in sentence one is justified because it defines coverage. Minor cost: the event-type list is visually heavy relative to the short guidance that follows.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so partially (before/after values, page link, official source). With only one required parameter and rich schema coverage, most calling details are covered. Gaps remain on ordering, pagination/truncation at the 200 limit, and how verification-state flips are represented.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions the date scoping ('since a date') and dataset scope ('across Kingy's datasets'), but says nothing about 'query', 'limit', or the 'include_verification_states' toggle — which is arguably the least obvious parameter and would benefit from a note on when to enable it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Every recorded change across Kingy's datasets since a date') and enumerates the event categories covered (prices, limits, plans, shutdowns, deadlines, launches, model changes), which lets an agent distinguish it from narrower siblings like find_model_changes or list_ai_launches. Differentiation is achieved by implied breadth rather than an explicit sibling callout, 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?

'Use it to catch up or to poll' gives a use-context hint (catching up on changes, periodic polling) but no when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the 15 siblings. The agent must infer that for a single model's changes it should use find_model_changes instead.

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