list_benzinga_news

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the API source (Benzinga v2), mentions real-time retrieval, describes the return format ('consistent format for easy parsing'), and notes filtering capabilities. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear introductory paragraph followed by a detailed 'Args' section. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though the introductory paragraph could be more front-loaded with core functionality. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits. With an output schema present, the description correctly omits return value details. It adequately addresses the gaps left by minimal schema annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description compensates fully by providing detailed semantics for all parameters in the 'Args' section. It explains each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., ISO 8601 timestamp for 'published'), filtering logic (e.g., 'arrays that contain the value'), defaults (limit defaults to 100), and constraints (maximum limit of 50000), adding significant value beyond the bare 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 ('retrieve') and resource ('real-time structured, timestamped news articles from Benzinga v2 API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_ticker_news' by specifying the Benzinga source and structured format. It provides specific details about what is included in articles (headlines, full-text content, tickers, categories, metadata).

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 implies usage contexts ('ideal for building alerting systems, autonomous risk analysis, and sentiment-driven trading strategies') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_ticker_news' or other Benzinga tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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