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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the parallel fan-out to multiple sources, fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews on rate limit/5xx), USPTO soft-fail, and the return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, 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?

The description is a single, slightly dense paragraph but front-loaded with intuitive example queries. Every sentence adds useful information. Could be slightly improved with bullet points or separation, but is efficient overall.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure (changes grouped by source, counts, citation URIs). It covers sources, fallbacks, soft-failures, and the alternative tool. For a tool with good annotations and moderate complexity, this is sufficiently 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% but the description enriches meanings: 'since' accepts ISO date or relative shorthand ('7d', '30d', '3m', '1y') with example values, and 'value' can be ticker or zero-padded CIK. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/format 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 example queries and states the tool's purpose as a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call.' It specifies the data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tool entity_profile, making it easy to distinguish.

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 an explicit alternative: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window.' It also explains when the GDELT→GNews fallback occurs. However, it does not list specific scenarios to avoid using this tool.

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