de_recent_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by stating the sort order (newest-first) and the underlying GET endpoint mapping. This is useful but not extensive, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded and the mapping/use case is secondary. The phrase 'Useful for a law-monitoring feature' is slightly extraneous but not wasteful; it would earn a 5 if even that were removed or if it named an alternative.

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 list tool with two documented parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the scope (acts since a date), ordering, and API mapping. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative usage, but those are not strictly required given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 100%, so both parameters (since_iso and limit) are already documented with their types and meanings. The description mentions since_iso but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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-resource pair: 'Acts published since since_iso', with a clear sorting order ('newest-first'). The resource is 'legislation' via the mapped endpoint. It is distinct from siblings like de_search and de_get_act, but does not explicitly name or differentiate them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a use case ('Useful for a law-monitoring feature') which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. There is no comparison with siblings like de_search, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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