get_changes_since

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only and non-destructive (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), which covers the main safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral detail, that the comparison targets the latest successful local snapshot, but does not disclose what counts as a change or how results are returned.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the main action and resource, making it easy to scan; every word contributes to the tool's identity.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned 'changes' look like or what the tool actually produces. It also fails to clarify failure behavior or when a comparison is meaningful, leaving important operational context absent for such a narrowly scoped tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never explicitly explains league_id or snapshot_id. The phrase 'league snapshot with its latest successful local snapshot' hints at which resources the parameters refer to, but the agent still cannot determine the precise role or expected format of each parameter.

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 action ('Compare') on a specific resource ('a league snapshot' vs its latest successful local snapshot'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the snapshot-comparison scope is distinctive enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as get_league_data, get_data_health, or get_league_chat. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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