Get Recent Changes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds value by specifying the types of changes returned (kunngjøringer for companies, role and ownership movements for persons), which goes beyond the annotations to clarify the informational content.

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 highly concise, using two sentences that front-load the main action and usage context. Every sentence contributes value, covering purpose, use case, and a pairing suggestion (even if imperfect), with no wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present and clear annotations, the description covers the core function and usage context adequately. It is slightly incomplete due to the misleading 'subscribe_company' reference and not mentioning that the response structure differs between company and person types, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 high (75%), with clear descriptions for id, category, and entity_type, and days is defined by its min/max and default. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the 'last N days' concept, so it does not compensate for any schema gaps (days lacks a textual description).

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 with a specific verb ('List changes'), specifies the resource types (companies and persons), and defines the scope (last N days). It also differentiates from siblings by covering both kunngjøringer and role/ownership movements, which is not offered by a single sibling tool.

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 gives an explicit use case ('monitoring a target entity for triggers') with a concrete example query, which is helpful. However, it incorrectly references a non-existent sibling tool ('subscribe_company') for push notifications, potentially misleading the agent to look for a tool that does not exist among the provided siblings.

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