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

The description discloses detailed behavior beyond annotations: it fans out to multiple sources, explains fallbacks, flags the PatentsView API sunset, and describes the return structure (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs). Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, but the description adds rich operational context.

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 well-organized: it opens with query examples, then explains sources, fallbacks, date formats, output, and alternatives. Every sentence contributes critical information, and the structure is logical and scannable.

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 complexity (multiple data sources, fallbacks, date handling, output shape), the description is complete. It explains the output because no output schema is present, covers all parameters, and addresses failure/fallback behavior. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misinvoke.

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 covers all three parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds practical meaning: it gives explicit format examples for `since` (ISO date or relative shorthand) and a recommendation for typical monitoring ('30d' or '1m'). This goes beyond the schema's terse 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?

The description clearly states this is a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from entity_profile by noting the latter is for static profiles. The phrasing directly addresses the intended use case.

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?

Provides explicit query examples, describes fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews, USPTO soft-fail), and explicitly instructs to use entity_profile when a static profile is needed. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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