list_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: states the output shape ({title, slug, status, date}), explains status values ('new' vs 'updated'), formats the date (YYYY-MM-DD), discloses the default 7-day window and the 100-entry cap, and warns explicitly that providing `days` removes the cap and can return hundreds of entries. This is rich operational context agents need and cannot get elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then output shape, then behavior, then sibling routing in one flow. All sentences earn their place. Slightly dense — the URL template and per-field explanation could be tightened, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values — and it does, field by field. For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations, this covers everything an agent needs: purpose, shape, defaults, limits, and call-site routing.

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 coverage is 100% so the schema already documents `days`. The description still adds the semantics of the cap interaction ('an explicit days is never capped'), which is behavioral nuance the schema does not convey. While it does not add new syntax, the cap behavior is genuinely extra meaning.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('List recently published or revised evipedia.ai reviews') and a memorable framing ('the catalogue's change feed'), immediately distinguishing it from the static list_reviews and search_reviews siblings.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this for recency; use list_reviews to enumerate the whole catalogue and search_reviews to find a specific intervention.' It also points to get_conclusion/get_review for retrieving a full review once a slug is known. This covers when-to-use, when-not, and alternatives.

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