get_us_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral traits. It only states it returns headlines but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, pagination, or output structure. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but more transparency is needed.

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 extremely concise, with a clear title, example queries, and parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Ideal for quick understanding.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on expected input format (e.g., ticker case) and error handling, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: 'ticker: US 티커' clarifies domain, and 'limit: 헤드라인 개수 (기본 10)' defines the parameter's role and default. This provides value beyond the schema alone.

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 it provides US stock news headlines and gives example queries. It is specific about the resource (US stock news) and the verb (get). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though no other news tool exists among siblings.

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 provides example queries to indicate usage, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. Since there are no alternative news tools, the examples suffice to imply usage context.

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