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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description details the underlying sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO), specifies that USPTO soft-fails until reactivated, and describes the return structure (changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + citation URIs). 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?

Despite covering multiple sources and edge cases, the description is tightly written. It front-loads common query patterns, then succinctly explains the fan-out, parameter syntax, and when to use an alternative. No redundant sentences.

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?

The tool is complex (multi-source, fallback, soft-fail, relative dates), but the description covers all critical aspects: supported sources, parameter formats, return structure, and comparison with entity_profile. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the return format.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context: examples of relative shorthand for 'since' (7d, 30d, 3m, 1y) and that 'value' accepts ticker or CIK. It also reiterates the enum restriction for 'type'. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 query examples ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y'), then states precisely: 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call.' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool entity_profile, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use examples, recommends a typical 'since' value ('30d' or '1m'), explains fallback behavior, and directly tells the agent when to use an alternative ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile').

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