get_recent_changes

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions 'Premium feature — requires Ansvar Intelligence Portal', but lacks details on what happens on unauthorized access, pagination, or the exact scope of changes (e.g., any text change vs. new 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by use case and a critical requirement. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description effectively communicates purpose, use case, and a key requirement (premium feature). However, it omits details about output format or how changes are defined, which could be useful but are not critical given the simplicity.

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 explains each parameter adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and resource 'Swedish statute provisions that changed since a given date', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_legislation or get_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 states it is 'Useful for regulatory change monitoring', implying the use case, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, which are not critical given the specificity.

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