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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) by detailing the fan-out to multiple sources, fallback logic, USPTO patent note, and return structure (grouped changes, total count, 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?

The description is well-structured with query examples at the start and technical details following. Every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat lengthy. Slight room for conciseness but overall effective.

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 data sources, fallback, parameter flexibility, and no output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains all sources, fallback logic, return format, and parameter usage. The explicit mention of return structure compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'since' parameter's dual format (ISO date and relative shorthand with examples), clarifying 'type' is limited to company, and specifying 'value' can be ticker or CIK. This extra context raises the score to 4.

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 combining SEC filings, news, and patents for a company. It gives example queries like 'What's new with X' and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'entity_profile', which provides a static profile regardless of window.

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 says when to use this tool (for recent changes over a window) and when not to (use entity_profile for static profile). It provides guidance on the 'since' parameter format (ISO date or relative shorthand) and explains fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews.

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