changes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns changes (implying read-only) and specifies inclusive time window, but lacks details on pagination (despite 'limit' parameter), ordering, or whether it returns a list. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with verb. Extremely concise, though slightly lacking in behavioral details. Efficient but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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?

Tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and an output schema. Description covers core functionality but does not mention output schema existence or list format. Given output schema handles return values, it is adequate but could note that changes are returned as a list.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema; 'inclusive time window' relates to start/end but schema already describes them. No additional insight into 'signal' or 'limit' beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'changes for one signal', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'changes_many' (multiple signals) and 'changes_by_cycle' (by cycle). It exactly states what the tool does.

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?

Description implies use case: for a single signal within an inclusive time window. While it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, the sibling tool names provide clear differentiation, making the intended usage context obvious.

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