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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description discloses key behaviors: it fans out to multiple sources in one parallel call, has a fallback chain (GDELT preferred, GNews on rate-limit/5xx), and a soft-fail for USPTO due to API sunset. It also explains the output structure (changes[] grouped by source, citation URIs), providing transparency not covered 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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads examples, then explains sources, parameters, output, and alternatives in a logical flow. There is no fluff or repetition, and it remains readable despite the complexity.

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 (multiple sources, fallbacks, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs: input formats, source behavior, output shape, and an alternative tool. It even mentions a limitation (USPTO soft-fail). No critical context is missing for safe and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reinforces that `since` accepts ISO or relative shorthand and suggests '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring, but this is a minor addition to what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a change feed for a company over a time window, with examples like "What's new with X". It specifies the resource (company) and the action (getting recent changes), and explicitly differentiates from entity_profile by saying 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'.

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 gives concrete use cases ("updates on Acme") and explicitly mentions an alternative tool (entity_profile) for static profiles, with the distinction being time-window vs. all-time. It also explains the sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO), which helps decide when to use this tool.

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