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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews when rate-limited), soft-fail for USPTO, parallel call nature, and output format (changes[], total_changes, 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?

Description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured: starts with usage examples, then sources, then parameters, then output, then sibling reference. Each sentence adds value with minimal 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?

Despite no output schema, the description details output structure and source behavior. Missing potential details like pagination or maximum window size, but adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description adds practical examples for 'since' (e.g., '7d', '30d', '3m', '1y'), reiterates 'type' constraint, and gives examples for 'value' (ticker or CIK). Enhances understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool provides a change feed for a company over a time window, listing sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO) and output structure. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool entity_profile, which provides 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?

The description gives explicit use cases with examples ("What's new with X"), parameter guidance (ISO date or relative shorthand, with recommendation), and directly says to use entity_profile for static profiles, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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