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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it fans out in parallel to multiple APIs, explains the GDELT-preferred/GNews-on-failure logic, notes USPTO's soft-fail due to PatentsView API sunset, and describes the return structure (changes[], 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 dense yet efficient: front-loaded with recognizable user phrases, then a compact core statement, source list, parameter notes, return summary, and alternative tool pointer. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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's complexity (three data sources, fallback logic, soft-fails) and absence of an output schema, the description covers all essentials: what it returns, how `since` works, source-specific caveats, and when to choose an alternative. It is fully self-contained.

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 the baseline is 3. The description echoes the schema's parameter meanings (e.g., `since` formats) and adds a typical-use suggestion ('30d' or '1m') and examples of `value` (ticker or CIK). This is helpful but does not substantially extend beyond what the schema already documents.

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 natural-language triggers, then clearly states it returns a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call.' It lists specific sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO) and explicitly contrasts itself with entity_profile, making the purpose unmistakable 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 usage guidance: use it for 'what's new' / 'latest on Y' style queries, and directly names an alternative ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window'). It also explains the GDELT→GNews fallback behavior, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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