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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint; the description adds valuable behavioral context: it fans out to multiple sources, describes fallback logic (GDELT→GNews), notes soft-fail for USPTO due to API sunset, explains 'since' parameter formats, and outlines the return structure (changes[], total_changes, URIs). No contradiction 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 a single paragraph that efficiently packs multiple details (use cases, sources, fallback, return structure, sibling distinction). It is front-loaded with usage examples, but could be slightly more structured for easier scanning. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, fallback logic, parameter formats) and the lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers how to use the tool, what to expect, and how it differs from a sibling. No gaps remain for correct invocation.

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 extra meaning: it explains the 'since' parameter's ISO date and relative shorthand formats with examples, recommends '30d' or '1m', and clarifies that 'value' accepts ticker or CIK. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 starts with concrete user queries (e.g., 'What's new with X') and then explicitly states it's a change feed for a company in a time window via one parallel call. It lists the specific sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO) and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by stating when to use that instead.

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 that map to the tool's use, and directly tells when NOT to use it by directing to 'entity_profile' for static profiles. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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