amendments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions that it returns 'all amendment documents' and 'what they amend', but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or error behavior. This is minimal beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args block. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without any fluff.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential invocation details. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall the description leaves noticeable gaps.

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 description adds valuable meaning to the single parameter 'event' by defining it as an 'Event code' and providing a concrete example ('AUS-GP-2026'). Since the input schema provides no property descriptions, this is essential for correct invocation.

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 resource ('amendment documents') and scope ('for an event'), and it distinguishes from siblings by being specific to amendments. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get', phrasing it as a noun clause rather than an imperative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `list_docs` or `diff_amendment`. The description only states what it provides and the argument format, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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