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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: fans out to multiple sources, fallback mechanism (GNews when GDELT rate-limited), soft-failure for USPTO, and output format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). No contradictions with 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 well-structured and front-loaded with example queries. It packs significant detail efficiently, though could be slightly more concise without losing essential information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains output format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, URIs), fallback behaviors, and failure modes. Given the tool's complexity (multiple sources, fallbacks, soft-failure), the description is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context beyond schema: 'since' accepts relative shorthand and recommends '30d' or '1m'; 'value' explains ticker or zero-padded CIK; 'type' limited to 'company'. This additional 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 clearly states the tool is a change feed for a company, listing specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile' by saying 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'.

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 example queries ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y', etc.) and clearly states when to use an alternative ('Use entity_profile instead...'). It also gives guidance on the 'since' parameter ('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.