crehq_locations_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a next-since cursor for incremental polling and lists the event categories. However, it does not mention pagination specifics, rate limits, or potential edge cases (e.g., how the stream handles deletions), which would be valuable given the absence of structured annotation metadata.

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 three sentences and reasonably compact. The first sentence defines the core action, the second provides context/value, and the third explains the cursor. The second sentence is mildly promotional but still informative; overall, it earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the event stream, the cursor for incremental polling, and the intended use cases. It does not describe the exact shape of returned events, but with no output schema and a stream of known event types, it provides enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'since' and 'per_page'. The description reinforces the timestamp usage and cursor-based polling, but adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('cross-brand location LIFECYCLE STREAM'), and enumerates the event types (openings, closings, relocations, ownership/brand changes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like locations_list (current state) and location_history (single-location history).

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 use cases ('drives prospecting, market-monitoring, and who's moving right now alerts') and implies it is for real-time change tracking. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over a list or search tool.

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