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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO (with soft-fail note), and describes the return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation 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 well-structured, starting with example queries and then detailing behavior and sources. It is not overly verbose, though the list of example queries could be slightly trimmed. Still, it efficiently communicates key information in two paragraphs.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations fully cover safety, the description provides sufficient information: it explains the multi-source fan-out, fallback behavior, return structure, and when not to use it. This covers all contexts needed for correct invocation.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying accepted formats for 'since' (ISO date or relative shorthand like '7d', '30d') and giving examples. It also recommends using '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring, which aids correct parameter selection.

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 in the last N days/weeks/months' using specific example queries. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'entity_profile' by noting when to use the alternative, ensuring no confusion.

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 gives explicit usage scenarios (e.g., 'What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and provides a direct exclusion: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...' This clearly guides the agent on when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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