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

The description goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint) by detailing the multi-source fan-out behavior, fallback logic (GDELT→GNews on rate limits/5xx), USPTO soft-fail due to PatentsView sunset, and return structure (changes[], total_changes, pipeworx:// URIs). 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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence provides essential context (query examples, tool behavior, fallback, return structure, alternative). It is concise with no fluff, though a slight structural break (e.g., bullet points) could improve scanability. Still, it earns its length.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how multiple sources are queried, fallback behavior, return format, and when to use an alternative. It fully equips an agent to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by including usage examples (e.g., 'Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring') and explaining the relationship between 'since' and supported formats, which enhances the schema's basic description.

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 starts with concrete example queries ("What's new with X", "latest on Y"), clearly states it provides a change feed for a company within a time window, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool entity_profile by specifying when to use the alternative.

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 guidance: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window.' This clearly states when not to use the tool and names the appropriate alternative, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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