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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond that: detectedAt reflects when the system observed the change, not the legal in-force date. This helps set expectations about timestamps without contradicting the annotations.

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 purpose and filters, with a single important caveat about detectedAt vs. in-force dates. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list operation with a full output schema and all parameters documented, the description communicates the essential behavior and the one subtle timestamp distinction. It could be slightly more complete by naming sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Input schema covers all four parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the role of jurisdiction, concept, and date filters but does not add significant new meaning 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 gives a specific resource (“provisions”) and the nature of the feed (“added or modified”), plus the available filters (“jurisdiction, concept and date”). This is clear enough to orient an agent, though it doesn’t explicitly contrast with siblings like provision_history or follow_updates.

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 guidance on when to choose recent_changes over related tools such as follow_updates, provision_history, or search. The description explains what the tool does but not the context in which it is the right choice.

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