Company news

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that no sentiment/interpretation is added and that coverage is limited to English wire/press, which is useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then coverage and alternative. No redundancy; every word contributes.

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 output schema and annotations, description covers main usage and limitations. Lacks details on pagination or default behavior, but those are inferable from the schema (tab enum, limit min/max). Adequate for an agent to call correctly.

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 50%; description mentions 'ticker or keyword' which clarifies query/ticker usage, but does not explain tab, limit, end_date, or start_date beyond what schema provides. Some compensation exists but not complete for the half of parameters lacking schema descriptions.

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?

States it retrieves news from Yahoo Finance's news module for a ticker or keyword, listing specific fields (title, publisher, published_at, url, summary, source). It also names an alternative for Turkish sources, distinguishing it from search_disclosures.

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 notes coverage is mostly English wire/press and directs Turkish primary sources to search_disclosures, providing a clear when-not and alternative. This helps the agent choose the right tool without opening schemas.

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