list_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and covers output shape, status semantics, date format, default window, ordering, and URL pattern. It is docked because 'at most 100 entries' ambiguously contradicts the schema's statement that a large window returns 'hundreds of entries', leaving the actual cap unclear.

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 five dense sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, return format, defaults/limits, URL/related tools, and selection guidance. The action is front-loaded in the first clause, and there is no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, this is nearly complete: it covers input, output schema, defaults, limits, related tools, and use cases. The only gap is the ambiguous cap/volume statement, which slightly weakens an otherwise comprehensive spec.

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 single parameter `days` is already fully described in the schema, including default behavior and window semantics. The description adds only an example ('days: 30') and restates the default, so it satisfies the high-coverage baseline without meaningfully extending parameter understanding.

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 opens with 'List recently published or revised evipedia.ai reviews, newest first — the catalogue's change feed', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with list_reviews for the whole catalogue and search_reviews for specific interventions.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for recency ("what's new?")' and names alternatives for other goals. It also states that get_conclusion/get_review take the returned slug, which helps the agent understand downstream tool interactions.

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