get_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return item structure (headline, description, pub date, tickers, provider) and the asset scope, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination defaults, maximum limit, or that a symbol is required. Since the schema captures parameter constraints, the description's additions are moderate.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a clear list of return fields. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and return content, but does not mention required parameters, pagination behavior, or defaults. While the input schema fills many gaps, the description alone is not fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without relying on the schema.

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%, with all eight parameters described in the input schema. The description adds only broad context ('latest', 'aggregates'), not parameter-specific syntax or examples. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 'returns' and the resource 'latest news and press releases for financial assets.' It specifies asset types (stocks, ETFs, mutual funds) and lists the fields included in each item, fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_histories or get_summary which serve other purposes.

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 for retrieving news for a given asset, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. For example, it doesn't compare with get_search or get_histories, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name and description.

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