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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that `detectedAt` is observation time, not the legal in-force date, and by stating the feed covers added or modified provisions.

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 with no fluff. The core purpose and filters are front-loaded, and the important `detectedAt` caveat is placed as a short clarifying second sentence.

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 no output schema, the description could say a bit more about the return shape or ordering, but for a simple filterable list tool with fully documented parameters and a key timestamp semantic disclosed, it is largely complete. The limit parameter in the schema also implies pagination support.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description repeats that results are filterable by jurisdiction, concept, and date, which adds little beyond the schema. There is no extra detail about parameter formatting or interactions.

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 identifies the tool as a change feed of provisions added or modified, with filtering by jurisdiction, concept, and date. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like follow_updates or provision_history.

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 gives clear context: this is the corpus-wide change feed for provisions, with filters for jurisdiction, concept, and date. It implies usage for answering 'what changed in the corpus' questions, but it does not state when to prefer it over related tools such as follow_updates or provision_history.

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