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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively states that the feed is RSS-sourced, deduplicated, and only returns title, source, kind, published_at, and url, explicitly noting 'no article body text'. This gives the agent realistic expectations about output and limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return format and a key limitation. Every sentence carries substantive information and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and its limitation, which is essential since there is no output schema. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or error handling, but these are less critical for a read-only headline fetcher, and the explicit field list mostly satisfies the communication burden.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of the four parameters, and the description reiterates the 'ticker' param as 'optional filter by ticker or company name′, aligning with the schema. It adds no meaning for limit, api_key, or marketplace_license_key beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'market/company news headlines', and the specific source 'XFINLAB's aggregated real-time news feed'. It lists the exact fields returned and explicitly differentiates from full article text, which distinguishes it from a more general intelligence feed. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling 'get_intelligence_feed' or when it is not appropriate. The description only implies its use case ('recent... news headlines') but gives no exclusions, priorities, or conditions relative to alternatives, which leaves an agent without decision guidance.

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