micar_register_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any rate limits or side effects. The brief description only implies a query-like operation.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (two optional parameters, output schema present), the description is minimal but somewhat adequate. It explains the core purpose and one parameter, but lacks details on the limit parameter and usage context. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is mediocre.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It describes change_type with allowed values 'all | added | changed | removed', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the limit parameter is not explained at all, making the description only partially helpful.

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 tool shows 'Recent register movement: new filings, changed entries, removals.' It indicates the tool retrieves recent changes, which is specific and differentiates from summary or search tools in the sibling list, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as micar_register_summary or search_micar_register. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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