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

Adds rich behavioral detail: fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback (explains fallback logic and conditions), USPTO with sunset note. Returns structured changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs. 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?

Description is detailed but efficient; each sentence adds value (fallback logic, date format, return structure, sibling differentiation). Could be slightly tighter but no 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?

Despite no output schema, describes return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). Covers error/fallback scenarios (GDELT→GNews, USPTO soft-fail). Complete for a multi-source change feed tool with 3 required parameters.

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%, and description reinforces param meaning: suggests typical monitoring values for `since` ("30d", "1m"), explains `value` accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK. Adds usage suggestions beyond 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?

Description starts with common user queries and states 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call.' It clearly specifies the verb (get change feed), resource (company recent changes), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool entity_profile.

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 advises 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...' and implies usage for 'what's new' queries. Lacks broader alternatives among the many siblings, but context is clear.

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