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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns a dictionary of news articles and leaves count as a default, but does not mention rate limits, error behavior, authentication requirements, or what 'recent' means. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, followed by a clean Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place with no padding or redundancy.

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 tool is relatively simple with two parameters and an output schema, which reduces the need to explain return structure. However, the description omits any usage guidance or caveats (e.g., no mention of when to use this vs. search_stocks or get_stock_info). For a standalone news retrieval tool, it is adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does this effectively by explaining 'symbol' as a stock ticker with examples ('AAPL', 'GOOGL') and clarifying 'count' as the number of articles with a default value. This adds significant value beyond the schema's raw type definitions.

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 'Get recent news for a stock' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_stock_info, get_historical_data, and get_dividends by focusing specifically on news, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is for retrieving recent news about a stock, which is clear from the description and sibling names. However, there are no explicit instructions on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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