norway_get_updates

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating 'Not cached' (performance characteristic) and specifying the timestamp format requirement ('ISO 8601'). While annotations cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent properties, the description provides additional operational details that enhance understanding.

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 efficient with three focused sentences: purpose statement, usage guidelines, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, exclusions, and behavioral characteristics adequately.

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' parameter has a description), the description doesn't explicitly explain parameter semantics. However, it implies the 'since' parameter's purpose through context ('since a timestamp'), providing marginal value beyond the schema's minimal documentation.

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 ('monitor main company registry changes') and resource ('main company registry'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'norway_get_subunit_updates' for branch office changes. This provides precise differentiation from alternatives.

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 includes explicit 'USE WHEN' examples ('what companies changed recently?', 'registry updates') and provides clear exclusion guidance ('For branch office changes only, use norway_get_subunit_updates'). This gives comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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