company_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It correctly implies this is a read operation by saying 'Get', but does not disclose return format, pagination, news recency limits, or whether 'source' changes the news type. Given an output schema exists to describe the return, the bar is somewhat lowered, but for a news tool the lack of detail on scope is a moderate gap.

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?

Extremely concise - a single sentence, zero fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 which reduces the burden on the description for return values. However, for a news tool, key questions remain unanswered: how far back does 'latest' go, does source (VCI vs KBS) affect availability, and is there any filtering/disambiguation needed for companies with multiple listings? The description is adequate but thin given the sibling competitor landscape and the meaning of the source parameter.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description doesn't add value beyond the schema - 'symbol' and 'source' are self-explanatory and fully described in the schema. No additional context like date filters or news category is provided.

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 'Get latest news about a company' with a clear verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like company_overview or company_events - it's unclear how 'news' differs from 'events' or what temporal scope 'latest' implies (days, weeks, months?).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of what data the source parameter (VCI vs KBS) provides, whether news is recent only, or when one would prefer company_news over sibling tools like company_events or company_overview.

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