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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: output content is FinPortal's translation, and the original publisher's full text is never returned — an important expectation-setter that no annotation conveys.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the usage cue leads and the return contract follows immediately. Nothing repeats the name or title.

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 does the work of describing the return shape (title, summary, publisher, date, URL) and its licensing limit. What remains unstated is result ordering, coverage window of the stored news, and how `limit` interacts with total results — minor but relevant for a news-retrieval tool.

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?

The single parameter is `limit`, and schema description coverage is 0% — the property has no description at all. The description never mentions it, so an agent gets only the property name plus a default of 20 and a max of 50 to infer that it caps result count; nothing explains ordering, truncation, or total available results.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves stored international financial news, and the return description (translated title, short summary, publisher, date, original URL) makes the output concrete. It does not name which sibling to use instead (get_domestic_news, get_latest_news, get_company_news), so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

"Use for stored international financial news" implies the usage context (international, stored/archived), which edges out pure silence. But there are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for domestic, company-specific, or breaking-news queries, all of which exist as siblings.

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