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

Annotations include readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it fans out to multiple sources, has a fallback mechanism from GDELT to GNews on rate limits or errors, and soft-fails on USPTO. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 paragraph that efficiently packs all necessary information. It is front-loaded with example queries. While it is concise and well-organized, minor improvements could be made (e.g., using bullet points for sources), but overall it is effective and not verbose.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure: 'Returns structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It also provides context for when to use this tool versus 'entity_profile' and addresses all aspects of the tool's behavior, including fallbacks and limitations. This is complete for the intended use.

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%, but the description adds significant additional meaning. It explains the 'since' parameter's accepted formats (ISO date or relative shorthand like '7d', '30d') and recommends '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring. For 'value', it clarifies it can be a ticker or zero-padded CIK, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 uses specific verbs like 'change feed' and clearly states the tool returns structured changes from SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, and USPTO. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'entity_profile' by noting when to use that tool instead, e.g., 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...' This provides excellent clarity and differentiation.

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') and explains when to use the tool versus the sibling 'entity_profile'. It also details internal fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews) and notes that USPTO soft-fails until reactivated, giving clear guidance on tool behavior.

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