fleetsync_orders_status_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the date format and the 'Minimum: UTC - 1 day' constraint, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination, response shape, or any limitations beyond the date restriction. The description is transparent about the core behavior but leaves 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 compact and front-loaded, with three short sentences covering purpose, use case, and parameter constraints. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the input format/constraints. It lacks details about the response structure or pagination, but given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete.

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%: the parameter 'date' is fully described in the schema with the same information (format, meaning, minimum constraint). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, a baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get FleetSync orders that had status changes after a specific date/time.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and the emphasis on 'status changes' distinguishes it from sibling tools like fleetsync_orders_by_date or fleetsync_order_history. The purpose is immediately understandable and non-tautological.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for checking recently delivered/updated orders.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Given the sibling tools, this guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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