company_news

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about result volume, source, article format, paywalled/empty results, or rate limits. It also leaves the critical behavior of `as_of` unstated — whether a null value means "now" or something else — which materially affects calls.

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?

A single compact sentence with the temporal scoping front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity borders on under-specification, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

With three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should carry much more. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the as_of format/null semantics, the lookback default behavior, and ticker expectations remain undocumented, leaving gaps that could cause malformed calls.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning the schema cannot express: that `days` is a lookback window ending at `as_of`. But it leaves `as_of`'s accepted string format (ISO date? datetime? timezone) and the meaning of a null value unexplained, and says nothing about `ticker` beyond the implicit company reference.

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 names the resource ("News about the company") and scopes it with the two filtering parameters, so an agent knows roughly what it returns. However, there is no verb framing (fetch/list) and no explicit differentiation from the sibling `global_news`, so the boundary between company-specific and general news must be inferred from the phrase "about the company".

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 statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer `global_news` or `social_sentiment`, or what prerequisites (e.g., a valid ticker) are needed. The agent gets no routing guidance beyond the tool name.

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