Get Commertize news and market commentary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the return granularity (headlines and summaries, not full bodies) and the editorial provenance ('Commertize's own editorial view, not independent research'), which signals potential source bias to the agent.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. Topic scope, return shape/alternative routing, and source caveat are each front-loaded in that order of importance.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover the safety profile. Between the topic scope, the headline-vs-full-body distinction, the sibling handoff, and the editorial bias caveat, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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% and all three parameters (limit, query, category) are fully documented in the schema, including the local-substring semantics of query. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Published news and market commentary from Commertize') and instantly scopes the subject matter (tokenization, RWAs, digital capital markets, regulation). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_article by stating that this returns headlines and summaries only.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'use get_article for a full body'. That is a clear alternative-with-condition. It does not, however, state when this tool should be preferred over unrelated siblings like list_offerings or search_offerings, nor any exclusion conditions.

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