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

The annotations already mark the tool as a safe read (readOnlyHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: exact Markdown return shape, meanings of columns, the relationship between Events story numbers and Stories, and the fact that lowest-ranked stories are dropped with a meta-line omission count. No contradiction exists.

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 efficient, starting with the intended use, then the output shape, then essential constraints. Every sentence communicates a distinct fact needed to call the tool correctly. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: Markdown structure, numbered stories, flat events/claims tables, reference columns, source counts, reporting span, and dropped-story behavior. It also covers requirements and constraints, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining cross-parameter requirements, that tickers must be exchange-suffixed, that multiple tickers act as an OR/overlap filter, and that company names/brands are not resolved. This is useful but not exhaustive for every parameter, so a 4 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 the tool is for news, event, development, or statement questions about companies, themes, or the market. It names the resource (news stories/events/claims) and the main filtering dimensions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like company_search or filing_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opens with an explicit 'Use for any news...' usage condition and adds concrete parameter-level guidance, such as 'search_type=claims needs query/ticker/a time window, not theme' and 'At least one of query/theme/ticker/since/until is required.' It does not mention alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer them, so no exclusion guidance.

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