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

The description adds a critical security-related behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it warns that headline and body are third-party content wrapped in EXTERNAL-CONTENT boundaries and should be treated as data, not instructions. It also clarifies the 'newest first' ordering, providing useful operational context.

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 precise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a valuable safety note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, ordering, and a security warning. The annotations and schema cover the rest, leaving no major gaps.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (ticker and limit), and the description does not add additional parameter-level detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description correctly relies on the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 'Recent news for a ticker (newest first)', specifying both the resource (news) and behavior (newest first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snacs_bars_get or snacs_quote_get, which address different data types.

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 implies usage for retrieving recent news for a ticker but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention specific scenarios, but the intent is clear enough for basic use.

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