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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: fans out to multiple sources with fallback (GDELT→GNews), soft-fails on USPTO, returns structured changes with citation URIs. Does not contradict 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?

Single paragraph front-loaded with natural language examples. Every sentence adds necessary context about sources, fallback, parameter formats, return structure, and sibling differentiation. No wasted 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (structured changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). It covers source behavior, fallback logic, parameter details, and cross-tool guidance. An agent has sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning beyond schema: explains `since` format with examples and recommended values, clarifies `value` accepts ticker or CIK, and notes `type` is limited to 'company'. This enriches the semantic understanding.

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 for a company (SEC filings, news, patents) in a given time window, with example queries. It distinguishes from sibling 'entity_profile' by noting when to use that 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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('what's new with X' queries) vs entity_profile (static profile). Provides examples of query phrasing and explains `since` format options (ISO date or relative shorthand) with specific recommendations like '30d'.

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