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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: multi-source fan-out, fallback mechanism, soft-fail for patents, and output format. It does not detail potential failure modes or latency, which would warrant a 5.

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 purpose with examples. Every sentence adds value. Could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., separate sections for parameters), but it remains concise and informative.

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?

No output schema, so description covers return values: 'structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs'. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, this is adequate and complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: 'type' is only 'company', 'since' accepts relative shorthand with suggested defaults, 'value' can be ticker or CIK. This goes beyond the schema.

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 covering filings, news, and patents in a given time window. It uses specific verbs and resources ('change feed', 'fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO') and distinguishes from the sibling 'entity_profile' tool.

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 tells when to use ('what's new/latest/updates') and when not to ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile ... regardless of window'). Also provides examples of typical monitoring interval ('30d' or '1m').

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