list_recent_by_agency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: results are raw, single-agency, un-reconciled, and returned 'exactly as the agency reported them.' It could add ordering or time-window details, but core behavioral fidelity is clear.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The core behavior is in the first phrase, and usage context follows without repetition.

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?

The description covers purpose and distinguishes from `find_events`, and an output schema covers return structure. But with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, useful details like the default recent window, ordering, and `min_magnitude` behavior are missing.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only implies agency and recency; it does not explain `limit`, `start_time`, `end_time`, or `min_magnitude` semantics.

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-resource pairing ('list recent events from a single agency') and immediately distinguishes this tool from the reconciled sibling by saying 'without cross-agency reconciliation.' It also names `find_events` as the reconciled view, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to see what one network alone is publishing, especially small local events, and to compare against `find_events`. The alternative is named, and the condition distinguishing them is clear.

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