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

Discloses that the tool fans out to multiple sources, with a fallback from GDELT to GNews when rate-limited or on 5xx, and a soft-fail for USPTO due to API sunset. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the description adds useful behavioral context 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, usage examples, and a sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff, making it both informative and concise.

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 logic, parameter options, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers data sources, fallback behavior, parameter formats, and provides an explicit alternative tool, leaving no major gaps.

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 adds significant meaning: explains `since` accepts ISO dates or relative shorthand (e.g., '7d', '1y'), `value` can be ticker or CIK, and `type` is currently limited to 'company'. This goes well beyond the schema 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 clearly states that the tool provides a change feed for a company over a time window, aggregating from SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, and USPTO. It gives example queries like 'What's new with X' and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'entity_profile'.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. 'entity_profile' (static profile). Provides parameter guidance for `since` (ISO date or relative shorthand) and examples for `value` (ticker or CIK). Also 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.