corporate_announcements

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 not state whether this is a read operation, what output to expect, how defaults like segment='equities' behave, or any limitations such as date range constraints. The description is a static phrase with no behavioral information.

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 a single, short sentence that is easy to read and front-loaded with the main subject. It uses minimal words, but it is under-specified rather than overly verbose. The structure is fine, though the content is too lean to earn a perfect score.

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 four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to effectively invoke the tool. It does not explain return structure, parameter constraints, or when this tool is the right choice among many siblings. It barely meets the minimum viable threshold.

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?

The description mentions segment, date range, and symbol as filter dimensions but does not explain their formats, valid values, or optionality. With 0% schema description coverage, the burden is on the description, and it fails to provide meaning beyond parameter names. For example, the date format for to_date/from_date is unspecified.

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 identifies the resource (corporate announcements) and filter scope (segment, date range, symbol), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_quote or chart_data. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' so it is a noun phrase rather than a complete action statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like symbol_meta or stock_history, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases. The description is purely a resource description with no usage context.

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