news_ticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the purpose and adds no detail about output format, pagination, news recency, or any side effects. This falls short of the transparency expected for an unannotated tool, especially given the ambiguity of 'get news' (list vs. single article).

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. Appropriate for a tool with one parameter.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. It does not clarify whether the response is a list of articles or a single piece, time ranges, or any filtering limitations. While the tool is simple, the lack of any behavioral or output context makes it insufficient for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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% for the single parameter 'ticker' with 'Stock ticker'. The description's phrase 'by ticker' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get news'), the resource ('news for a specific company'), and the key parameter ('by ticker'). It differentiates from siblings like news_general and news_category by implying company-specific retrieval, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without reading the schema.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it is for ticker-based company news, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., news_general for broader news) or any exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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