Watch Finnish companies for changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that snapshots are kept locally per watchName, which fields are reported, and that person data is omitted, but it does not explain first-run behavior, whether the snapshot is updated by the call, or any persistence/side-effect semantics.

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 behavior and immediately followed by the key data-scope exclusion. There is no wasted language.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a useful partial picture: the fields reported and the company-only scope. It still leaves important completeness gaps around return shape, first-run behavior, and whether the local snapshot is mutated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It meaningfully explains watchName as the local snapshot key and identifies businessIds as Business IDs, but it does not add format details beyond what the schema already constrains.

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 and resource: it checks Business IDs against a stored snapshot and reports named field changes. It also scopes the tool to company-level data and explicitly excludes person data. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling prh_company_events tool.

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 usage context is implied by 'last snapshot' and 'watchName', which suggests repeated checks over time. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of prh_company_events or when not to use it, and no prerequisites are stated.

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