Get Company Changes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is read-only, requires APIFY_TOKEN, consumes credits, and returns only changes as typed events in Clay-ready JSON. No contradiction. Additional context like rate limits or error handling is not provided, but annotations already cover safety.

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 purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys action, scope, return type, and requirements.

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 monitoring tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format (typed change events, Clay-ready JSON), the scope of changes (hiring, tech stack, etc.), and usage requirements (token, credits). Minor gaps like pagination or depth of changes could be added, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it monitors a company domain for changes across hiring, tech stack, funding, firmographics, and social. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aggregate_gtm_signals or enrich_company_firmographics by emphasizing monitoring over time rather than one-time enrichment.

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 periodic use ('since the last run') and mentions requirements (APIFY_TOKEN, credits). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of monitoring vs. one-time detection is clear from sibling tools.

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