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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing multi-source fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback due to rate limits, USPTO soft-fail due to API sunset, and return structure with grouped changes and pipeworx:// citations.

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 long but front-loaded with user intents and every clause contributes essential information (sources, fallback, return shape, alternative). It could be trimmed slightly but remains efficient for its complexity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explicitly states returns: 'structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It also explains fallback behavior, soft-fail, and input formats, fully covering the tool's contract.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters and an enum for type. The description repeats the `since` formats already present in the schema and adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly defines the tool as a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling entity_profile by stating 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static 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?

Provides clear when-to-use context with natural-language triggers ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and explicitly directs users to entity_profile for static profiles, covering both use and alternative cases.

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