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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: GDELT→GNews fallback on rate limiting, USPTO patents soft-fail due to PatentsView API sunset in May 2025, and that results are grouped by source. This goes well beyond the 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 fairly long but every sentence provides distinct value: sources, fallback logic, date formats, return structure, and alternative tool. It is dense rather than wasteful, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 explains the return shape (changes[], total_changes count, citation URIs). It also covers the tool's non-purpose (static profile via entity_profile) and the exact time-window semantics, making it fully complete for an agent to select and call 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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the format for `since` and `value`, and adds a practical recommendation ('Use 30d or 1m for typical monitoring') that gives extra guidance beyond the schema's dry parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly describes a change feed for a company over a time window, listing specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It also differentiates from entity_profile by noting that alternative provides a static profile regardless of window.

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 says when to use this tool vs entity_profile, and provides example query phrasings. It also notes fallback behavior (GDELT preferred, GNews on rate limit/5xx) and explains `since` accepted formats and recommended values like '30d' or '1m'.

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