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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds useful context by saying news comes from configured source feeds and that results include source and publication links. It still does not disclose freshness windows, rate limits, ordering beyond what the schema provides, or behavior when no results are found.

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 compact sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by filtering scope and return information.

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?

For a simple read-only news retrieval tool with full parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It notes the configured-source behavior and returned links, though without an output schema it could say slightly more about headline fields or ordering. The remaining gaps are minor.

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 three parameters, including the limit maximum and the fact that symbol overrides category. The description restates the available filtering modes but does not add syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: get recent market news from configured source feeds. It also scopes the tool with symbol and category filters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools such as get_filings, so it falls just 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?

The description explains how to filter by symbol or category, which implies the tool's usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools. It is adequate but relies on the reader to infer its place among the other market-data tools.

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