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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds rich behavioral context: parallel fan-out to multiple sources, GDELT→GNews fallback on rate limits/5xx, USPTO soft-fail due to PatentsView sunset, and the return structure with citations. 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?

Despite being longer than typical descriptions, every sentence adds value: example queries, source breakdown, `since` format, return shape, and alternative tool. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with 3 params, no output schema, and multiple external data sources, the description is remarkably complete. It covers source fallbacks, failure modes, return structure, and usage caveats, leaving few ambiguities.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented (type enum, since formats, value examples). The description adds minimal new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not compensate for gaps because there are none.

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's function: it provides a change feed for a company over a recent time window, fanning out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, and USPTO. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning entity_profile for static profiles, and the core purpose is 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 guidance on when to use this tool (recency-based changes) and when not to, saying 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile.' It also provides context on the `since` parameter formats and fallback behaviors, helping the agent decide correctly.

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