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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO soft-failure due to API sunset, accepted since formats, and return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, pipeworx:// citation URIs). No contradictions 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 dense but every clause earns its place, starting with relatable query examples then moving to source behavior, since syntax, return shape, and alternative tool. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully covers return values (structured changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). It also documents data-source caveats (PatentsView sunset), fallback logic, and the parameter range, making the tool usable without additional lookups.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description largely repeats schema details (ISO or relative since, ticker or CIK, type only company). It adds a minor recommendation ('Use 30d or 1m for typical monitoring') and contextualizes how since affects sources, but does not significantly deepen parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with concrete user phrasings and defines the tool as a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call,' then names the exact sources fanned out to. It explicitly contrasts with entity_profile ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'), so it distinguishes from a major sibling tool.

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?

It provides clear use-case triggers ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and gives an explicit when-to-use-alternative rule: use entity_profile for static profile regardless of window. It also documents fallback behavior (GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited or 5xx) and a soft-fail caveat for USPTO, giving agents enough context to decide.

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