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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the underlying data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO), the fallback logic (GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited or 5xx), and a known limitation (USPTO soft-fails after PatentsView sunset). It also details return structure, which is especially important given no output schema.

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 detailed but every sentence contributes: purpose, use cases, sources, fallbacks, parameter details, return format, and alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically. No redundant or filler content.

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 (multiple data sources, fallback logic, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, parameter formats, return structure, and an alternative. It also flags a known degradation (USPTO soft-fail). The description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and 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 specific examples for the `since` parameter ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y") and recommends "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring, which enriches the schema description. It does not add extra meaning for `type` or `value` beyond the schema, but the added `since` guidance justifies a 4.

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 begins with concrete query patterns ("What's new with X") and states it is a "change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call." This clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool entity_profile by explaining when to use the static profile instead.

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 queries, explains the parameter semantics, and includes an explicit alternative: "Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile (filings + fundamentals + LEI + patents) regardless of window." This gives clear context for choosing between tools.

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