get_listing_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the scope (database-wide or one listing) and the temporal window, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention pagination, result ordering, or how the event-type filter behaves, so transparency is only partial.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the core scope and window, which is good, though it is so brief that it leaves significant context for other dimensions unaddressed.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and many siblings, a one-sentence description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral details, despite the output schema covering the return shape. An agent trying to choose between this and its siblings would need more context.

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 56%, with several parameters (make, model, price_max, listing_id) lacking descriptions. The description adds only minimal parameter meaning: 'for one listing' hints at listing_id and 'within a window' hints at since. It does not explain filtering semantics, event_types choices, or interactions between parameters beyond what the schema already shows.

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 states that the tool returns change events for listings, either across the entire database or for a single listing, within a time window. This makes the resource and scope clear, and distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_new_listings and find_price_drops because it covers all change events rather than a specific subset. It does not explicitly enumerate the event types, but the schema provides those details.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_new_listings, find_price_drops, or get_price_history. The phrase 'across the database (or for one listing)' implies a general audit use case, but there are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection conditions.

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