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

Beyond annotations, it discloses critical behavior: fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback (with specific conditions), and USPTO soft-fail due to API sunset. It also notes single parallel call and citation URI output, providing rich operational insight.

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 user intents and then systematically covers function, sources, parameters, return format, and alternative. It is somewhat dense but every sentence adds value, and the structure aids comprehension without waste.

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 adequately explains return values (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, pipeworx:// citation URIs) and covers sources, fallbacks, soft-fails, and `since` formats. It is comprehensive for a tool of this complexity and clearly identifies when to use a sibling.

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 a minor recommendation ('Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring') and confirms that `since` accepts relative shorthand, but largely repeats schema descriptions without significant extra meaning.

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 in the last N days/weeks/months' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from entity_profile by explicitly naming the alternative for static profiles, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context with natural language intents ('What's new with X') and states when to prefer entity_profile instead ('when you want the static profile... regardless of window'). This gives clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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