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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds detailed behavioral context: fans out to multiple sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO with deprecation note), return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs), and parameter behavior. No contradiction with 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 lengthy but justified by the tool's complexity. It is well-structured with examples, parameter details, and alternative tool reference. Could be slightly trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (multiple data sources, fallback, relative dates, return structure), the description provides complete context: purpose, when to use, parameter rules, behavioral details, and alternative tool. No output schema, but return structure is described.

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 valuable context beyond schema: explains relative shorthand for 'since' (e.g., '7d', '30d'), recommends '30d' for monitoring, and clarifies that 'type' only supports 'company' today. This adds meaning useful for the agent.

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 in a specified time window, with concrete examples like 'What's new with X'. It 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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus entity_profile, and examples of queries are provided. The description 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.