Industry News

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: news is refreshed every 30 minutes, sourced from 40+ trade publications, and returns specific fields including mentioned market/operator entities. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool actually does without contradicting annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: routing guidance comes first, followed by source/refresh behavior, return fields, filters, an example, and exclusions. It is longer than strictly necessary, and phrases like 'FRONT DOOR CHECK' are slightly jargon-heavy, but nearly every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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, rich input schema, output schema, and strong annotations, the description is fully complete for correct selection and invocation. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, when not to use it, example usage, and the key category filter, leaving no critical gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns extra value by giving a concrete usage example ('get_news category=AI limit=10') and explicitly warning that the parameter is `category`, not `topic`. While it does not deeply explain all seven parameters, the schema already handles that, and the added disambiguation is genuinely useful.

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 that get_news retrieves curated data center industry news from 40+ trade sources and returns titles, summaries, sources, publication dates, and mentioned entities. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from execute_plan, list_transactions, and get_pipeline, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: if news is only one input to a larger question, use execute_plan; if the user wants headlines, use get_news directly. It also names exclusions with specific alternatives: use list_transactions for M&A deal data and get_pipeline for the construction pipeline. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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