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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses specific behaviors: fans out to multiple sources in one parallel call, fallback logic (GDELT→GNews), and a known limitation (USPTO soft-fails due to PatentsView sunset). It also describes return structure and citation URIs, adding significant value beyond annotations.

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 focused paragraph with a clear lead-in, examples, mechanism, and alternative. Every sentence contributes, and it remains readable despite covering multiple data sources and the `since` parameter formats.

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?

Though no output schema exists, the description compensates by specifying the return shape: 'structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It also covers edge cases like rate-limiting and API sunset, making it fully contextual 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 covers all parameters (100%), but description adds semantic value by explaining accepted date formats and giving usage examples ('Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring'). It reinforces parameter meaning without redundancy.

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's purpose with vivid examples ('What's new with X' / 'latest on Y') and a precise definition: 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call.' It distinguishes from sibling entity_profile by contrasting the static profile vs. change feed scope.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given through example queries and by stating it fans out to multiple sources. It also tells when NOT to use it: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window.' This directly guides 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.