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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: it fans out to SEC EDGAR, uses GDELT with GNews fallback on rate-limit/5xx, notes the USPTO PatentsView API sunset and soft-fail, and describes the return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, and pipeworx:// URIs). Annotations already mark it read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds significant context without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with concrete user-phrase examples, then efficiently explains source routing, parameters, return shape, and the alternative tool. Each sentence carries unique information—there is no filler or redundancy—making the length justified by the tool's complexity.

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 multi-source fan-out, fallback logic, recent-window semantics, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return structure, `since` syntax, source behaviors, and a clear alternative for static-profile needs, so an agent can confidently select and invoke it without additional documentation.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (type enum, since formats, value examples), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only modest value by restating ISO/relative formats and suggesting "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring, but it does not introduce meaning substantially beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a change feed for a company over a recent window, anchored by multiple concrete natural-language examples ("What's new with X", "latest on Y"). It also names the specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO) and explicitly distinguishes itself from entity_profile, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance via query patterns ("what happened to Z this week/month/quarter") and provides a direct alternative: "Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...". It also clarifies fallback behavior and a recommended default (`since` of "30d" or "1m"), which helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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