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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds internal fan-out details (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO soft-fail) and output structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, citations). However, it does not disclose potential limits like maximum window or API rate limits.

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 comprehensive but slightly lengthy. It is well-structured: front-loaded with example queries, then sources, then parameter details, then guidance. While every sentence adds value, a more streamlined version could be more concise.

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's complexity (multiple data sources, fallback, parameter flexibility, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains all major behaviors, input formats, and even the output structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, pipeworx:// URIs).

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value: explains that 'type' only supports 'company', describes 'since' format with examples and typical usage ('30d' or '1m'), and clarifies 'value' accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 defines a specific verb-resource combination: 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by explicitly saying '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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'. Includes example queries, explains fallback behavior (GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited), and suggests typical monitoring window ('30d' or '1m').

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