get_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well: it discloses that the result is untrusted data, warns about potential prompt-injection attempts, instructs the agent to summarise rather than act, and notes that as_of is required and the call fails without it. This far exceeds minimum transparency.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and packs a critical safety warning plus examples into every sentence. The examples serve as concrete invocation templates rather than fluff.

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?

The output schema covers return values, the description covers safety behavior, required-parameter failure semantics, and usage examples. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with types, enums, and date semantics at 100% coverage. The description adds valid usage examples and reinforces that as_of is required, but does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('dated news for a symbol as of a date'), which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bars or describe_series. The scope is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 communicates usage context clearly through the purpose statement and two concrete examples, including the required as_of parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that an agent can infer when to select get_news.

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