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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds significant context: multiple data sources, fallback logic, soft-fail for USPTO, and return structure with citation URIs. No contradictions.

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?

Every sentence adds value, structured with examples, source details, parameter guidance, and sibling differentiation. No fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description fully explains return structure (changes grouped by source, total count, citation URIs). Covers all parameters, usage, edge cases (USPTO soft-fail). Complete for a complex tool.

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%, but description adds valuable detail: explains ISO vs relative shorthand for since, typical monitoring suggestion, ticker vs CIK for value, and that type only supports company. Slightly more than baseline 3.

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 it's a change feed for a company over a recent window, with example queries and listing of data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It distinguishes from the sibling tool entity_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?

Explicitly tells when to use entity_profile instead, provides typical values for since parameter, and explains fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews. No gaps.

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