check_entity_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking for modifications since 'last sync', implying a read-only operation focused on change detection, but doesn't specify whether it returns all modifications, only recent ones, or details like error handling or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns modification data. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., list of modified IDs, timestamps, or changes), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error cases or performance. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured output, more context is needed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('entity_ids' and 'last_synced') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool checks modifications for given IDs since a timestamp, but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose as checking which entity_ids have been modified since a specific timestamp. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'modified') and identifies the resource ('entity_ids'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_entities' or 'get_entities', which might also retrieve entity information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring a previous sync timestamp, nor does it compare to sibling tools such as 'find_entities' or 'get_entities' that might serve similar purposes. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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