get_market_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that news articles are retrieved; it does not mention whether results include titles, full text, publication dates, rate limits, or whether 'real' implies live data vs. simulated. This is a minimal but not fully transparent description.

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 a single concise sentence that fully communicates the core action and target resource without unnecessary words or redundancy. It is front-loaded 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no nested objects or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly indicates the result (news articles) and the input (ticker), but it could benefit from a note on the output format or time sensitivity. However, the low complexity makes this an acceptable level of completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the ticker parameter clearly described as 'The stock ticker symbol to filter news by.' The description's mention of 'specific stock' aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves market news articles filtered by a specific stock ticker. The verb 'Retrieve' with resource 'real market news articles' and scope 'for a specific stock' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_price or get_financial_statements.

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 when needing news for a particular stock (via ticker), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or comparison to sibling news-related tools (if any), so usage context is only implied.

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