Get Section Changes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: empty results mean no recorded change, not absence of publisher amendments. It also clarifies the data source ('our capture history, not the publisher's'), which is an important interpretative caveat an agent needs to avoid drawing wrong conclusions.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core behavior and ordering are in the first sentence, and the critical caveat plus alternative are in the second. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists and all 6 parameters are documented with high coverage, the description needs only to clarify higher-level intent and data interpretation. It does exactly that, including the empty-list caveat and the distinction from publisher history. An agent has everything necessary to call this tool correctly.

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%, so every parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full semantic load and the description does not need to compensate.

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 exactly what the tool returns: observed changes to one section over time, with kinds (added, amended, removed) and ordering (newest first). It clearly distinguishes this from the publisher's history by explicitly pointing to amendmentHistory, which prevents confusion with sibling tools related to watch changes or publisher metadata.

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 alternative: 'For the publisher's own history, read amendmentHistory on the section.' It also clarifies when this tool is appropriate — for our refreshes' capture history — and warns against misinterpreting empty results as proof that the section was never amended. This is strong routing guidance.

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