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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is filtered-search only and mentions sortby options, but does not explain output format, pagination, defaults, or any constraints like rate limits. It adds some behavioral context but leaves significant operational details undisclosed.

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 a single concise paragraph with strong front-loading ('FILTERED-SEARCH ONLY'). Every sentence adds value: scope, when to use, when not to use, and additional sort options. No wasted words.

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 (17 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides excellent selection guidance but is incomplete operationally. It doesn't mention return values, pagination, default days/items, or the meaning of fallback and exclude parameters. It covers the core use case but not the full parameter space.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly naming and explaining many key parameters: topic, sector, source, sentiment, date_range, article/video (news_type), free-text search, multi-ticker, and sortby rank/oldestfirst. It does not cover pagination, days, fallback, or exclude parameters, but the main filter semantics are well conveyed.

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 identifies this as a filtered-search tool for newswire content, listing specific filters (topic, sector, source, sentiment, date_range, article/video, free-text) and multi-ticker search. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the plain-summary sibling tool (tengu_v3_news_summary), making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'reach for this when the user specifies filters... or multi-ticker search.' Also gives a clear when-not-to-use rule: 'Never for plain what's the news on X?' and names the alternative tool. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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