Impact-path intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns stories for impact paths, but does not disclose any additional traits like pagination, behavior on invalid input, or data freshness. With annotations carrying most of the load, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently states the tool's core function, earning its place without wasted characters.

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?

Despite having an output schema and strong annotations, the description is too minimal for a tool with three parameters. It does not define 'impact path,' set expectations on result scope or limitations, or provide any usage hints. The agent would need to infer too much from the name and schema alone.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate. However, it does not explain any of the three parameters (impactPath, limit, publishedSince) beyond the schema's minimal details. The term 'impact path' is hinted in the purpose but not explicitly linked to the parameter, leaving agents with little beyond the schema.

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 verb 'return' and the resource 'stories' with the qualifier 'associated with a causal or market impact path.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like tnl_search_news and tnl_latest_news by focusing on impact paths, but does not explicitly differentiate or name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when it is appropriate to use. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues to help an agent decide.

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