norway_get_subunit_updates

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it discloses that results are 'Not cached' (indicating fresh data) and specifies the temporal nature of the query ('since a timestamp'). While annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent characteristics, the description provides additional operational context without contradicting annotations.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first defines the tool's function and key characteristics, the second provides sibling differentiation. There is zero wasted language, and the most critical information appears first.

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?

Given the tool's read-only nature (confirmed by annotations), the presence of an output schema, and the clear sibling differentiation, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral traits while avoiding redundancy with structured fields.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage (only 'since' has a description), the description doesn't provide additional parameter details beyond what's implied by 'since a timestamp' for the 'since' parameter. It doesn't explain the 'size' parameter at all. The description adds minimal value over the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is incomplete.

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 specific action ('Get sub-unit (branch) registry changes'), resource ('sub-unit (branch) registry'), and temporal scope ('since a timestamp'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'norway_get_updates' by specifying it's for sub-units rather than main companies, providing clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('For main company updates, use norway_get_updates instead'), creating a clear alternative scenario. It also specifies the temporal context ('since a timestamp') and notes the data freshness ('Not cached'), giving comprehensive usage context.

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