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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses rich behavioral details: the fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback with conditions (rate-limited/5xx), USPTO soft-fail due to PatentsView API sunset, accepted `since` formats, and return structure (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs). This significantly exceeds the annotation information.

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 dense paragraph that covers many aspects, but every clause contributes useful information—no filler. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points or sections, but given the complexity, it remains appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has multiple sources, fallbacks, and parameter formats; the description covers all of them in a cohesive way. It explains the return structure (structured changes[] + total_changes + URIs) despite no output schema, and provides a clear pointer to the static-profile alternative. This is comprehensive for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value by illustrating `since` formats ('7d', '30d', '3m') and recommending '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring. It also reinforces that value can be a ticker or CIK, though this is already in the schema. This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 defines the tool as a change feed for a company within a recent time window, with example queries like 'What's new with X' and 'updates on Acme.' It also distinguishes from entity_profile by explicitly stating when to use the alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance through example user queries and explicitly names an alternative: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile.' It also details the coverage (filings, news, patents) and fallback logic, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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