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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it details the multi-source fan-out (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO), the fallback logic (GDELT preferred, GNews on rate-limit/5xx), the PatentsView API sunset soft-fail, and the output structure (changes[], total_changes, pipeworx:// URIs). This enriches the read-only and idempotent nature already declared by 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 information-dense and well-structured, with each sentence contributing useful detail. The opening examples are somewhat redundant (six paraphrases of the same query intent), which could be trimmed, but the rest is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return format and source behavior, including fallback and failure modes. It covers the tool's complexity adequately, enabling an agent to understand what to expect and when to use it.

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%—each parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description repeats the `since` format (ISO date or relative shorthand) and provides examples, but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a change feed for a company within a time window, supporting queries like "What's new with X" and "updates on Acme." It explicitly distinguishes itself from entity_profile, which is the static profile tool, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated from siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance through example queries and directly states the alternative: "Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window." This gives clear direction for tool selection without ambiguity.

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