ingest_event

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond these: it requires a backend LLM key, normalizes content, grades severity, maps symbols, and discusses idempotency regarding URLs. This adds meaningful behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with a clear main statement, usage guidance, idempotency note, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose in repeating some schema details, but overall concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers all essentials: what happens during ingestion, dedup behavior, requirements (LLM key), and return value. It provides sufficient context for the agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter info and adds minor clarifications (e.g., 'ingested_by distinct from source'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. It does not introduce new constraints or examples.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Feed a finance news item... into the event ledger.' It specifies the verb (feed/ingest), resource (event ledger), and outcome (normalization, grading, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like news_sources or run_committee by focusing on ingesting new items.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'You have far better search reach... proactively feed news... especially A-share/regional coverage the crawler misses.' It implies the alternative of relying on the self-hosted crawler and gives context for agent action. No explicit 'when not to use' but sufficient for a high score.

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