Search financial news

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination with opaque cursor, collapse_stories behavior, AND-matching of tokens, and the sources_count signal. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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 four sentences, each adding value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then details filters, pagination, and collapse option. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (9 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all key aspects: filtering capabilities, pagination, collapse behavior, relevance score range. It mentions date format implicitly but clearly. No gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes parameter categories but does not add new details beyond what is already in the schema descriptions for each parameter. It does not provide additional syntax or format guidance.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'AlphaAI's enriched financial news feed', and lists comprehensive filtering options (free-text, tickers, category, date range, relevance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alphai_ticker_news or alphai_trending, which have more specific scopes.

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 for general financial news search with rich filters. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling names and the tool's own filtering capabilities provide sufficient context for an AI agent to decide when to use this tool. A small improvement would be to add a sentence about when not to use it.

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