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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses fallback behavior (GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited or 5xx), soft-failure of patents due to PatentsView API sunset, and the return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, pipeworx:// 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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads with user intents, then covers sources, fallbacks, date formats, return structure, and alternative tool. It is well-structured and avoids 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?

For a tool with multiple sources, fallbacks, and date formats, the description is highly complete. It explains return values (changes[], total_changes, URIs), source-specific behavior, and provides an explicit alternative, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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%, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: it explains `since` accepts ISO dates or relative shorthand with examples, recommends '30d'/'1m' for monitoring, and clarifies that `value` can be a ticker or zero-padded CIK. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 clearly states it provides a change feed for a company over a time window, with specific verbs like 'returns' and 'fans out' to SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, and USPTO. It distinguishes itself from the sibling entity_profile by explicitly saying to use that tool for static profiles.

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?

It provides explicit usage context with example queries ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and gives a clear alternative: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window.' This tells when to use this tool vs. an alternative.

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