get_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the headline-count bound (1-10) and the article field list, but the latter simply restates what the existing output schema already provides. No permission, rate-limit, or recency behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core action; nothing is bloated. The second sentence largely duplicates the output schema, which slightly reduces its value but costs little space.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient — the agent knows what it returns and the count bound. The only substantive gap is any guidance on choosing this over sibling news-adjacent tools.

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 both parameters (symbol and limit, including the 1-10 range and ISIN/company-name guidance) are fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the limit range but adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get recent news headlines for a Yahoo symbol'), which is clear and distinguishes it from sibling quote/financial tools by subject matter. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast scope against them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_company_info or search; the 'use search first for a company name' hint lives in the symbol parameter schema, not the description. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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