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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds details on source fan-out, fallback logic (GDELT→GNews), soft-fail for USPTO, and return structure (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs). No contradictions.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads example queries, then explains function, sources, parameter hints, return format, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence is necessary and adds value without redundancy.

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 sources, fallback, soft-fail, structured return), the description covers all aspects: purpose, sources, parameters, return format, and alternative tool. No output schema exists, but return structure is described. Idempotent, read-only behavior is clear from annotations.

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%, so parameters are already described. The tool description adds extra value by providing recommended usage for 'since' (e.g., 'Use 30d or 1m for typical monitoring') and examples for 'value' (ticker or CIK). Only minor improvement possible.

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 it provides a change feed for a company by aggregating multiple sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It gives concrete example queries and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool entity_profile, which provides static profiles.

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?

It provides explicit usage examples (e.g., 'What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and directly contrasts with entity_profile, stating when to use that alternative. This gives clear guidance on when to select this tool.

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