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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds significant behavioral context: it fans out to SEC, GDELT→GNews fallback (with conditions like rate-limiting or 5xx), and USPTO soft-fail. It also describes the return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation 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 front-loads the purpose with common queries, then packs sources, fallback behavior, parameter formats, and alternative tool guidance into a dense but readable text. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 that the tool has no output schema and three required parameters (all with enums or string formats), the description fully covers the return format (grouped changes, total count, citation URIs), all data sources and their fallback mechanisms, and parameter semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond schema by explaining acceptable formats for `since` (ISO date or relative shorthand like '7d', '30d') and that `value` can be ticker or CIK. This adds meaningful clarification beyond the schema 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 multiple concrete example queries, then clearly states the purpose: a change feed for a company in a time window that fans out to multiple sources in one parallel call. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool entity_profile, making the tool's unique role very clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus entity_profile ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'). It also suggests typical values for the `since` parameter ('Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring.'). However, it does not cover all possible alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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