get_stock_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. It discloses the return content (headlines with source, timestamp, URL) which is useful, but it does not mention any side effects, potential errors, rate limits, or confirm it is read-only. Since it's a 'get' operation, read-only is implicit, but the description doesn't explicitly state it or any other behavioral nuances.

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 compact and front-loaded. It starts with the purpose, then the return format, then the alternative, then the Args section. Each sentence serves a distinct function with no redundancy. The structure is easy to scan and parse.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. The description explains both parameters, the purpose, and the distinction from a sibling. It could mention any constraints on the count (e.g., maximum) or note that it is a live fetch, but these are minor gaps given the overall completeness.

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 0% – the schema only provides parameter names and types, no descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining both parameters: 'ticker: Stock ticker symbol' and 'count: Number of headlines to return (default 10)'. This adds clear semantic meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb (get), resource (recent news headlines for a stock), and source (Finviz), and clarifies what is returned (headlines with source, timestamp, URL). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_earnings_news, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

It provides an explicit when-not condition: for earnings-specific headlines, use get_earnings_news. This clearly routes away from the tool in that case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool beyond the general definition, but that is implied by the purpose and the alternative, so it's adequate.

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