search_finance_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states it searches titles and descriptions, respects a limit, and returns a list of articles with specified fields. However, it does not disclose ordering, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some typical search behavior undocumented.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every line is informative, especially because the schema lacks descriptions, making the parameter explanations essential.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, how to control the result size, and what the returned entries contain. It does not repeat output schema details excessively, though it could mention ordering or other edge cases for full 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully compensates by explaining the query parameter (keyword to find in titles/descriptions) and the limit parameter (maximum articles, default 10). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema 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 states a specific action ('Search finance news') and a clear resource ('across all RSS feeds') with a keyword parameter. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_latest_finance_news, which implies fetching without a keyword filter.

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 implies usage when you need to search by keyword rather than just getting the latest news, but it does not explicitly mention the sibling tool or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Args' section clarifies inputs but lacks direct comparison to alternatives.

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