revnuvo_get_company_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does add useful context by noting that the result includes before/after states and evidence. However, it does not clarify the meaning or bounds of 'recent', nor does it explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, though the 'get' naming convention helps.

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 brief and front-loaded, leading with the core result type before adding a user-question framing. The second sentence repeats the intent in a different form but is short and helpful, so there is minimal waste.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the domain input and describes the output shape (recent changes with before/after and evidence). However, without an output schema and with no time-window definition or differentiation from timeline/technology siblings, an agent is left with some ambiguity about scope and expectations.

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 documents the single 'domain' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate for a coverage gap. It adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as domain format, examples, or validation constraints, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning recent technology/infra changes with before/after and evidence, so an agent can understand the core purpose. It does not use an explicit retrieval verb, and it does not sharply distinguish this from siblings like revnuvo_get_company_timeline or revnuvo_get_company_technologies, but the unique combination of before/after evidence makes the intent reasonably clear.

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 phrase 'Answer what changed at X?' gives a concrete user-intent signal and suggests when the tool is relevant. However, it provides no exclusion criteria, no alternatives, and no comparison to closely related sibling tools such as revnuvo_get_company_timeline or revnuvo_get_company_state.

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