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

Beyond the annotations indicating read-only and idempotent behavior, the description details the underlying data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO), notes that USPTO soft-fails until reactivated, and explains that the tool fans out in one parallel call. This provides a thorough understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured, starting with example queries, then explaining functionality, sources, parameter, return format, and alternative. It is efficient with no unnecessary words, though it is relatively long. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise. Still, it is clear and well-organized.

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 tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity with multiple data sources and fallback logic, the description covers everything needed: input format, data sources, return structure (grouped changes, total count, citation URIs), and a clear alternative. It is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context by providing examples for the `since` parameter (e.g., '7d', '30d', '3m', '1y') and recommending '30d' or '1m' for monitoring, and clarifies that `value` accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK. This added usage guidance justifies a 4.

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, listing multiple example queries such as 'What's new with X' and 'latest on Y'. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool entity_profile by recommending its use 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?

The description provides specific when-to-use guidance with example queries and explicitly tells the agent to use entity_profile for static profile. It also gives parameter recommendations, like using '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring of the `since` parameter.

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