crehq_company_changes

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the read-only feed nature, time-bounded scope, and optional event-type filtering, but it omits details like ordering, pagination, default return shape, and any authorization requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality and scope. The second sentence efficiently adds position relative to the lifecycle stream and the intended use case. No wasted words.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does a solid job of explaining what the tool does, its brand scope, time bounds, and optional filter. It could enhance completeness by mentioning ordering or default limit behavior, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level connection to the feed's purpose (time bounds, event-type filter) without introducing new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 specifies a 'date-bounded feed of everything that changed for ONE brand's footprint' with explicit event types (openings, closings, relocations, attribute edits). It also distinguishes this tool as 'the brand-scoped version of the lifecycle stream,' clearly separating it from sibling tools that may be location-scoped or global.

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?

It states a clear use case ('ideal for monitoring a target account') and implies this is the brand-level variant of a broader lifecycle stream, giving an agent context for when to choose it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of a full 5.

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