justhandled_chicago_contract_change_packet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the cost ($0.25 USDC on Base mainnet) and the baseline comparison behavior, but it does not detail output format, possible errors, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'Query'. This is useful but incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds the critical cost detail without unnecessary filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description is too brief to cover important aspects like the records parameter for deterministic testing, the meaning of previous_snapshot, or what a 'change packet' includes. It provides a high-level overview but omits essential context needed to invoke the tool correctly in various scenarios.

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 only 13%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does explain the query field enum values (vendor, department, contract, specification, keyword), but it says nothing about the other seven parameters, such as max_results, records, previous_snapshot, truncated, or source_updated_at. The description only partially covers the parameter space.

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 states the verb ('Query') and the resource ('live City of Chicago contracts dataset'), and specifies the available query fields (vendor, department, contract, specification, or description). The mention of comparing against a retained public-data baseline further distinguishes this tool from sibling change-packet tools.

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 implies usage for querying Chicago contract data and comparing against a baseline, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention excluded scenarios. Sibling names suggest similar change-packet tools, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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