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

The description discloses multiple behavioral traits beyond annotations: parallel call to multiple sources, fallback behavior, soft-fail for USPTO, date parsing options, and structured output format with grouped changes and citation URIs. This adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint and other 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?

The description is long but well-structured, starting with example queries and proceeding logically through sources, parameters, and return format. Every sentence adds necessary context, though a slight tightening could improve conciseness.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple sources, fallback, date parsing), the description is highly complete. It explains sources, fallback logic, date format, output structure, and provides a clear alternative tool, fully equipping an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples for the `value` parameter (ticker or CIK), explaining the only accepted `type` (company), and recommending typical monitoring periods for `since`. These enrich the schema definitions.

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 that the tool provides a change feed for a company in a recent time window, using example queries like "What's new with X". It distinguishes from sibling tool `entity_profile` by specifying that the latter is for static profiles regardless of window.

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 when-to-use guidance, including example queries and a specific alternative (`entity_profile`). It also provides parameter advice (e.g., 'Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring') and explains fallback logic (GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited).

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