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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description details valuable behavioral traits: fanning out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback on rate limits or 5xx, USPTO soft-fail due to PatentsView sunset, and the specific `since` format handling. It also discloses return structure. 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose with natural language, explains sources and fallbacks, provides parameter guidance, return shape, and an alternative tool. The structure is logical and efficient, with no filler.

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 having no output schema, the description covers return format ('structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs'). It handles complexity (multiple sources, fallback, parameter variants) and provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results. It is 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond. It gives concrete examples for `since` ('2026-04-01', '7d', '30d', '3m', '1y') and recommends '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring. It clarifies `value` can be a ticker or CIK. This adds meaningful semantics not present in the schema alone.

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 opens with natural-language queries ('What's new with X') and then explicitly states 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call.' It clearly identifies the resource (company change feed) and the action (retrieving recent changes), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool entity_profile at the end.

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 clear usage context: for time-boxed change feeds, with explicit fallback logic and source behavior. It also states when NOT to use it: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window.' This is an explicit alternative and exclusion.

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