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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions the FMP API and generic 'search' behavior. It does not state pagination behavior, result format, rate limits, or how the 'from' and 'to' date parameters affect results. The phrase 'track the latest developments' is vague and adds little transparency.

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 main action, and contains minimal fluff. However, the phrase 'using the FMP Search Stock News API' is somewhat redundant since the tool name already implies the source. Still, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the returned news articles look like, how pagination works with page/limit, the impact of date ranges, or when this tool should be used over sibling news tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description introduces 'company name' as an input, while the schema's only parameter is 'symbols' described as 'Comma-separated list of stock symbols'. This potential contradiction or ambiguity makes the description misleading about parameter semantics.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('stock-related news'), with specifics about ticker symbol or company name. It is a clear purpose but does not differentiate from sibling tools like getStockNews, which likely serve a similar function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getStockNews, getGeneralNews, or searchCryptoNews. The description gives no context about preferred scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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