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

Beyond annotations that declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description discloses the parallel fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, and USPTO soft-fail due to the PatentsView API sunset. It also explains date format handling and the return structure, adding rich behavioral context.

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 dense and multi-purpose, covering example queries, core function, source list, fallback logic, date formats, output, and an alternative in a compact but substantial paragraph. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently packs necessary details, though slightly long.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly describing the structured return (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, pipeworx:// citation URIs). It also covers failure modes (GDELT rate limits, USPTO sunset) and provides a clear alternative, making it self-contained and complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the date and value formats but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, though it reinforces with examples within the overall narrative.

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 a specific verb (get changes) and resource (company change feed), framing it with example queries like 'What's new with X'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with entity_profile, which serves static profiles rather than windowed changes.

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 explicitly names entity_profile as an alternative and advises using it when a static profile is needed regardless of window. It also provides context on when to use this tool (recent changes in a time window) and hints at fallback behavior, covering the when/when-not criteria.

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