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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description leverages these. It adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as multi-source fan-out, soft-fail for USPTO, and return structure (changes[] with citation URIs). No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with common query patterns and efficiently packs purpose, sources, fallback, parameter details, return structure, and alternative tool into a few sentences. Minor verbosity could be trimmed, but overall it earns its length.

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 complexity (multi-source, fallbacks), the description covers essential aspects: input parameters, behavior, return structure, and relationship to sibling. It lacks an output schema but describes key return fields adequately for agent understanding.

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% with descriptions, but the tool description enhances parameter meaning by explaining the relative shorthand for 'since', acceptable formats for 'value' (ticker or CIK), and providing example usage. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 provides a change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months by fanning out to multiple sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' for static profiles.

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 includes explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile') and explains fallback behavior (GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited). It also provides parameter usage tips (e.g., 'Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring').

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