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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews with fallback on rate-limit/5xx, and USPTO with soft-fail due to API sunset. Also details the return structure (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs), which is not covered by 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 long but every sentence earns its place—natural-language triggers, parallel-call efficiency, per-source fan-out details with fallback, date formats, and output shape. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and progressively detailed.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return format (structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs). It also explains data sources, date filtering, and the sibling alternative, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the 'since' format examples but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly defines the tool as a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months' and lists natural-language triggers ('What's new with X', 'updates on Acme'). It distinguishes from sibling entity_profile by stating 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile,' making the resource and scope 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?

Provides clear trigger phrases for when to use ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and explicitly names an alternative: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window.' This is explicit when-and-when-not guidance.

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