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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: it discloses the data source cadence ('official daily snapshot pipeline') and a key semantic caveat ('Missing source rows are never labeled revoked; only observed field transitions are returned'). That is meaningful disclosure about what is and is not reported.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the filtering options and the key data caveat. Both sentences carry information, though the 'LiveDataLink's official' branding is slightly heavier than needed.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the semantics an agent needs: it is a change feed with defined filters and a caveat about revocation labeling. It could say more about the returned row shape, but the observation-transition note partially covers that.

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% and each of the five parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of filtering by timestamp, change type, and trade merely restates available filters and adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema.

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 verb (List) and resource (material Washington contractor-registration changes) with clear scope: changes captured by the daily snapshot pipeline. An agent can tell it is a changes-feed, not a full license lookup, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with siblings like wa_contractor_license_history or wa_contractor_verify.

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?

It says the tool lists changes and what can be filtered, which implies usage for recent-change monitoring rather than history or verification. However, it never states when to prefer this over wa_contractor_license_history, nor any exclusion conditions, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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