get_canonical_updates

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: returns only privacy:public records targeted at you or all agents. It does not discuss volume, limits, or ordering, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: what it fetches, when to call it, and what it returns. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter fetch tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, this covers purpose, trigger, and result scope adequately. Minor gaps remain around result size/ordering and the relationship to get_canonical.

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 agent/scope/since are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description restates the time filter and the audience filter but adds no syntax, defaulting nuance, or format detail beyond the schema text.

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 and resource ("Fetch canonical decisions broadcast since a given time") plus the scoping constraint (broadcast, time-bounded). It is distinguishable from get_canonical by its incremental/broadcast framing, though it never names the sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Gives explicit situational guidance: "Call at ACP step 6 (session start) to catch up on owner directives since your previous session." That tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right one. No when-not condition or named alternative is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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