grant_changes_since

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the kind of changes returned but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, how results are ordered or paginated, or what 'watch' does.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the extreme brevity contributes to missing usage and parameter details, which are better captured elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is critically incomplete for the unexplained 'watch' parameter and lacks any behavioral context an agent would need to invoke the tool reliably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains that 'since' expects an ISO date, but the optional 'watch' parameter is completely undefined, leaving half the parameters semantically opaque.

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 a specific resource (grant changes) and lists example change types (new_award, award_amount_change), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as search_grants or snapshot_grants, leaving the agent to infer that it is a change-feed 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 phrase 'since an ISO date' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like trial_changes_since or changes_feed, nor any exclusions. The optional 'watch' parameter is also left unexplained.

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