get_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval and the return format ('JSON string of news articles with titles and publishers'), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness (e.g., how 'recent' is defined). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, and the output schema likely details the return structure, reducing the need for return value explanation. However, it lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, leaving room for improvement in overall context.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'symbol' is a 'Ticker symbol' and 'max_items' controls the 'Maximum number of news items to return', clarifying their roles. However, it does not specify constraints like valid symbol formats or max_items range, so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieves recent news headlines for a given symbol.' This specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('news headlines'), and scope ('for a given symbol'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_symbol_sentiment' or 'get_fundamentals', which might also involve news or data retrieval, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_symbol_sentiment' (which might analyze news sentiment) or 'search_crypto' (which could include news), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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