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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it fans out to multiple sources (SEC, GDELT, GNews, USPTO), explains fallback logic (GDELT preferred, GNews on rate-limit/5xx), and notes the USPTO API sunset soft-fail. 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 longer but well-structured: starts with usage examples, then explains functionality, sources, parameter details, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact. Still, it avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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 compensates by specifying the return structure: 'Structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs'. It covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and alternatives comprehensively. No gaps identified.

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 value beyond the schema by clarifying accepted formats for `since` (ISO or relative), suggesting '30d' for typical monitoring, confirming `type` only supports 'company', and giving examples for `value`. This provides meaningful extra guidance.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months'. It provides numerous query examples ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') that make the tool's intent immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'entity_profile' by specifying when to use each.

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 offers clear usage guidance through example queries and explicitly states when not to use the tool: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'. This direct alternative reference helps the agent choose correctly.

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