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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it fans out to multiple data sources, specifies the GDELT→GNews fallback logic, mentions USPTO's soft-fail due to API sunset, and describes the return format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, pipeworx:// citation URIs). Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose with example queries, then details sources, then parameters. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is fully complete. It explains the return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs) and covers behavior for each source. It also mentions limitations like USPTO soft-fail and that only 'company' is supported for type.

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 rich semantics: it explains 'since' accepts ISO dates or relative shorthand with examples ('7d', '30d', '3m', '1y'), recommends '30d' or '1m' for monitoring, and for 'value' clarifies ticker or CIK with examples. It also explicitly states that 'type' only supports 'company' currently.

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 starts with concrete example queries ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and clearly states it provides a change feed for a company from multiple sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO) over a time window. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'entity_profile' by noting when to use that tool instead.

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 lists when to use this tool ('What's new with X' etc.) and provides an alternative: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile regardless of window.' It also gives guidance on the 'since' parameter, suggesting '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring.

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