Search market news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses ordering behavior ('newest-first and reranked against the query') and implies output includes source URLs ('Cite the source URL for any claim you repeat'). It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but 'search' implies no mutation, and this is sufficient for a read tool.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: purpose, usage scope, and behavioral notes. All sentences earn their place, and the most critical info is front-loaded in the first two sentences.

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 11 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides needed context: result type (articles/press releases), ordering, and source URL expectation. It does not explain pagination or tier restrictions, but those are already in the schema, so the description is complete enough for effective tool use.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so baseline is 3. The description lists filter categories (free text, ticker, source, date range, sentiment, quality score) but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it is a helpful summary but not additional detail.

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?

Opening sentence states a specific verb+resource: 'Search GridNews for market news articles and press releases.' It clearly defines the deliverable and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as 'The primary tool' for any market/company/sector event question, unlike specialized tools like get_symbol_news or list_press_releases.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use it 'for any question about what has happened in the markets, at a company, or in a sector,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. Does not name alternative tools as exclusions, but the primary-tool framing implies it as the default choice, so not a 5.

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