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

The description discloses behavioral traits well beyond the annotations: it mentions parallel fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews fallback, USPTO patent source with a note about API sunset and soft-fail, plus the return format (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs). This provides rich context that annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) do not cover. 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with example queries, then states the core purpose, then provides source/fallback details, parameter format, return structure, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity. It is not bloated or redundant.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (changes[], total_changes, pipeworx:// citation URIs). It covers sources, fallback behavior, date format, and explicitly contrasts with entity_profile, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds extra meaning: it explains `since` accepts ISO date or relative shorthand with concrete examples ('7d', '30d', '3m', '1y') and recommends '30d' or '1m' for monitoring. This goes beyond the schema's description of `since` as 'Window start'.

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 this is a change feed for a company over a time window, with specific verb 'change feed' and resource 'company'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling entity_profile by explicitly saying 'Use entity_profile instead for the static profile', and provides example queries showing its purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: it names entity_profile as the alternative for static profiles regardless of window, and gives example query phrasings ('What's new with X') to indicate when to use this tool. It also explains the fallback behavior (GDELT to GNews on rate limit/5xx), which helps decide when to invoke it.

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