get_recent_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the response shape ('detailed event list with customer info and summary counts'), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or ordering of events.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, purpose front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Efficient and appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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 one-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers both what it returns and what events it includes. However, with zero annotations it could have stated the read-only/no-side-effect nature and the default recency assumption explicitly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'days' parameter already documents default, min, and max in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond implying a recency window, so the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (recent subscription changes), then enumerates the event kinds covered: new subscriptions, cancellations, upgrades, downgrades, failed payments. Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like get_failed_payments or get_mrr_movement.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the many adjacent reporting tools (get_churn, get_mrr_movement, get_failed_payments). 'Recent' implies a lookback window but gives no guidance on when this is the right call over a single-metric sibling.

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