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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, and USPTO, with details on fallback triggers and a soft-fail warning for USPTO. It also mentions the return format, enhancing transparency beyond 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, dense paragraph that packs a lot of information efficiently. It front-loads with example queries, then covers sources, parameters, and alternatives. While not perfectly structured (e.g., could use bullet points), it remains focused and wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple external APIs, fallback logic) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a fairly complete picture. It explains the sources, fallback behavior, parameter usage, and return structure. The USPTO sunset warning adds foresight. It could mention pagination or limits, but overall it is well-rounded.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'since' parameter with both ISO date and relative shorthand examples, clarifying that 'value' can be a ticker or CIK, and noting that 'type' only supports 'company'. This enriches the schema's minimal 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 begins with example queries that immediately convey the tool's purpose. It clearly states it returns a change feed for a company over a time window, fanning out to multiple sources in one call. It also distinguishes itself 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 explicitly advises using 'entity_profile' for static profiles, providing a clear alternative. It also offers guidance on the 'since' parameter ('Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring'). However, it does not explicitly cover when not to use it (e.g., for real-time updates), but the context is largely clear.

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