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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only operation. Description adds behavior: fans out to multiple sources, fallback from GDELT to GNews on rate limits/5xx, USPTO soft-fails, and return structure. No contradictions 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?

Paragraph is dense but well-structured: opens with example queries, then sources, fallbacks, parameter hints, return format, and sibling reference. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose.

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, description fully covers return format (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs), failover behavior, and API status (USPTO sunset). Explicitly references sibling tool. Complete for complexity.

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 has 100% coverage but description adds: relative shorthand examples for 'since' (e.g., '30d'), ticker/CIK for 'value', and notes only 'company' supported for 'type'. Goes beyond schema with usage recommendations.

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?

Description states it's a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months' using example queries, specifies sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'entity_profile' for 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?

Provides clear usage context with example queries, explains temporal window via 'since', and gives explicit alternative ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile').

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