get_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It honestly discloses that the tool 'does the diff against a timestamp you supply' and enumerates the types of updates (filings, macro releases, price moves). However, it omits details about return format, error handling, or any potential side effects, which would strengthen transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and scope, while the second paragraph justifies its existence without fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 a fully documented schema, an output schema, and a description that explains both purpose and usage context, the definition is fairly complete. It could benefit from a concrete example or a note about edge cases, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter thoroughly documented (e.g., 'since' accepts window, date, or ISO timestamp). The description adds high-level context about what changes are tracked, but does not add param-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'get' with 'updates' and clearly defines the scope: 'What has actually changed since a point in time: new SEC filings, macro releases that have printed, and outsized price moves.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings that answer 'what is true now', making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a clear usage context by contrasting with 'Every other tool here answers what is true now' and explains the pain of manual diffing. While it doesn't name specific sibling tools, it effectively communicates when to use this tool versus the broad alternative of refetching and diffing.

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