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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds value by telling the agent that every story includes publication/ingestion timestamps and source links, which sets expectations for the response.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second adds filter capabilities and output expectations. No redundant phrasing or boilerplate.

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 read-only annotation and a simple list/search tool, the description covers the essential output fields and filter dimensions. It does not describe result ordering, pagination, or how arguments combine, but the low operational risk and schema constraints keep this from being a major gap.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does map most parameters to filter categories (feed, text/tickers/topics) but leaves limit and the precise semantics of combining filters undocumented. The input schema's property names and constraints do most of the work.

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 opens with a clear action-resource pair: 'Search or list market-news stories,' and then enumerates the supported filter dimensions (feed, text, tickers, topics). This makes it easy to distinguish news.stories from sibling market tools such as market.search or market.history, which operate on quotes and historical data.

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 does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of queries better suited to market.search, company.analyst_research, or macro.calendar, and no prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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