get_entry_changes

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required credentials (EVENTOR_USERNAME and EVENTOR_PASSWORD), which is useful, and clarifies the scope (timestamps, not full details). However, it doesn't cover rate limits, error behavior, or what the timestamp format looks like (though output schema exists).

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, front-loaded with the purpose and a useful qualifier, then the auth requirement. No wasted words, though the line break in the middle is slightly awkward.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, scope, and auth requirements. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation and parameter format.

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?

Only one parameter (event_id), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description doesn't explain what event_id is or its format, but with just one obvious required parameter, the baseline 3 is reasonable – the schema structure itself is self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (entry/modification timestamps for a specific event) with clarifying parenthetical about what's returned (who entered/changed and when). It distinguishes itself from get_event_entries by emphasizing change timestamps rather than full competitor details, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The phrase 'without full competitor details' implies a contrast with get_event_entries but doesn't state when to choose this tool over that one.

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