global_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: results are drawn from the `days` window preceding `as_of`, which clarifies the temporal semantics of the query. It says nothing about result volume, truncation, defaults, or data sourcing, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the temporal constraint is stated compactly. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than waste, but nothing in the text is redundant.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what string format `as_of` expects or what `limit` bounds, and there is no guidance on choosing this tool over company_news or macro_indicator.

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 for all three parameters. It explains the interaction of `days` and `as_of` as a lookback window, but says nothing about the accepted format of `as_of` (a plain string with a null default), the role of `limit`, or any of the defaults, leaving a third of the parameters and key format details undocumented.

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 a specific resource (global macro and market news) plus a retrieval verb, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. The word 'Global' implicitly separates it from the sibling company_news, but no sibling is actually named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 is only implied by the scope wording: 'global macro and market' suggests times when broad-market context is wanted rather than company-specific coverage. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of company_news, and no statement of prerequisites or the relationship to siblings like macro_indicator.

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