narrative

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as that pulse mode surfaces 'catalysts that price hasn't yet reflected' and alerts identify divergence between sentiment and price. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool does.

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 clear sections for each mode and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While informative, it is slightly verbose and could be condensed without losing clarity.

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 (two modes, four parameters, no required fields, existing output schema), the description is complete. It explains what each mode returns and how parameters affect behavior. No gaps are apparent.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: mode options, symbol requirement for pulse, min_pulse threshold, and limit for alerts. This adds meaning beyond the schema's defaults and types.

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 tool's purpose: 'News intelligence — narrative-change signals layered on price.' It explains two distinct modes (pulse and alerts) with specific use cases, effectively distinguishing the tool from siblings like narrative_alerts and narrative_pulse by combining functionality.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use each mode: pulse for single-symbol analysis requiring symbol, alerts for market-wide anomalies. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or when not to use this tool, leaving room for improvement in exclusion criteria.

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