obligation_deltas

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a change feed (implying read-only), describes what it maps, and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior, rate limits, or response structure, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first defines the tool's core functionality, the second provides a concrete use case and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, filters, and the API key requirement. It lacks details on response format or behavior at limits, but the presence of sibling tools with similar purposes makes the differentiation clear enough.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds contextual meaning by summarizing filter capabilities (time, pillar, nodes) and the requirement for an API key, but these largely mirror the schema descriptions without providing additional constraints or formatting details.

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 states it is the 'obligation-level change feed' that maps changed primary sources to affected obligation nodes. It also provides a concrete use-case question ('what obligations changed since I last review?'), which strongly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_latest_changes' or 'watch_changes' that might be more general.

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 explicitly states the tool answers a specific question and highlights filterability by time, pillar, or nodes. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools, such as when to prefer 'obligation_deltas' over 'watch_changes' or 'get_latest_changes'.

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