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

Annotations already indicate read/ idempotent hints; description adds details about fan-out to multiple sources, fallback logic, USPTO soft-fail, date format handling, and output structure (changes[] grouped, count, citations). 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 detailed and well-structured, front-loading purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, though slightly longer than strictly necessary for conciseness.

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 exists, but description fully explains return format (changes[], count, citations) and covers source-specific behaviors (fallback, soft-fail). Complete for a complex multi-source 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions; description adds richer context for `since` (ISO/relative examples, '30d' tip) and `value` (ticker or CIK). Goes beyond schema requirements.

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 the tool returns a change feed for a company in a given time window, fanning out to multiple sources. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool entity_profile for static profiles.

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 usage examples ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and directly tells when to use entity_profile instead. Also explains fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews.

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