Monitor changes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value beyond that: it confirms no one is contacted, explains that a snapshot baseline is persisted in server cache and/or returned to the caller, and notes the output carries stable ids and severities. The storage side effect and id stability are behavioral details the annotations do not cover.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison purpose before the output and read-only notes. The first sentence is dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 an 11-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the comparison logic, the snapshot lifecycle, and the read-only guarantee adequately. Because a return-value schema exists, it need not describe outputs in detail. Minor gap: no explicit routing to sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters including enums (role, locale), defaults, and the snapshot object structure. The description's comparison semantics (latest vs previous year, thresholds, revisions) add narrative context but no parameter-level syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it checks a country's UNHCR displacement figures for changes, comparing the latest year to the previous one and detecting releases/revisions against a snapshot. The scope is clear and concrete. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like trend_analysis or latest_statistics, leaving that to inference.

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 clearly conveys the context of use ('changes worth attention', comparing against a stored or passed snapshot) and explains the round-trip baseline mechanism for repeated calls. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or a named alternative to prefer, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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