get_visa_changes

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

Description discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires a Starter plan API key'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, no other behavioral traits like rate limits, default ordering, or pagination are mentioned, leaving some gaps given no annotations.

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?

Four sentences with clear front-loading: first sentence states purpose, second describes returns, third lists filters, fourth gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words; each sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, filter options, auth, and usage context. It does not detail return format or any limitations, but is sufficient for basic understanding. Minor gap in not describing result ordering or count.

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% with each parameter having a description specifying ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. The description adds only that filtering is optional, not providing additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states 'Get recent changes to visa policies worldwide' with specific verb and resource. It lists types of changes (updates, exemptions, modifications), differentiating from sibling tools like check_visa_requirement which handles specific inquiries.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool when the user asks about recent visa news, policy updates, or changes in entry requirements for a country.' Provides clear context for when to use but does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools for other queries.

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