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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return payload (company identifiers, previous/new values, temporal bounds). It stops short of mentioning pagination or result-volume behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then usage, then return shape. No filler, though the return sentence could arguably be folded in more economically.

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 usefully compensates by describing the returned event fields. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only/open-world annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/ordering details are missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, event_type, and attribute_key are already documented in the schema. The description's "employee count drops" example loosely illustrates attribute_key semantics but adds no format or value guidance beyond the schema examples. Baseline 3 applies when 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 ("Search for company attribute change events") and scopes it "across companies," which visibly distinguishes it from single-company siblings like get_company_history and get_company. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: finding companies where a specific attribute recently changed, and monitoring a dimension (with an example, "employee count drops"). It does not name an explicit alternative (e.g. get_company_history for a single company's timeline), so selection guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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