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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds substantial context beyond this: multi-source fan-out, fallback logic, USPTO soft-fail due to PatentsView API sunset, accepted since formats, and the return structure (changes[], total_changes, pipeworx:// 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 long but information-dense. It front-loads the most important use case with examples, then packs source details, fallback behavior, and return format into a tightly structured paragraph. Every clause adds value, but the density may require careful reading—hence not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return shape (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). It also covers input formats, source-specific failure modes, and alternative tool usage. For a tool that fans out to three APIs with fallbacks, this is thorough and 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description. The description adds practical examples and constraints: 'since' accepts ISO date or relative shorthand ('7d', '30d', '3m', '1y') with a tip to use '30d' or '1m' for monitoring, and 'value' can be a ticker or zero-padded CIK. This exceeds the schema's bare descriptions without fully replacing them.

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 opens with natural-language query examples ('What's new with X'), then defines the tool as a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call', listing the specific sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tool entity_profile, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance with example queries and a direct exclusion: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window.' It also explains fallback behavior (GDELT preferred, GNews on rate-limit/5xx) and soft-fail conditions, helping the agent decide when results may be incomplete.

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