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

Annotations already convey read-only/idempotent/open-world, but the description goes further by disclosing the exact data sources, fallback logic (GDELT preferred, GNews on rate-limit/5xx), the PatentsView API sunset soft-fail, and output structure. This is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond 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 dense but not bloated; it packs many specifics into a single paragraph. The opening query phrasing helps with intent matching, and every clause contributes functional detail. It is slightly long, but appropriate for a multi-source fan-out tool.

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 stating it returns 'structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It also covers supported entity type, date formats, source fallbacks, and the main alternative tool, making it complete for a complex tool with no output schema.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor but useful guidance—e.g., recommending '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring and reiterating `since` shorthand examples—but mostly restates schema content.

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 provides a change feed for a company over a time window, fanning out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, and USPTO. It distinguishes itself from entity_profile by contrasting dynamic change feed vs static 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool ('What's new with X') and when not to ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'). It also describes fallback behavior between news sources, giving clear operational context.

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