news_sentiment_monitor

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant context: cache TTL (60 min), language restrictions, and a detailed privacy warning about profiling under Swiss law, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 includes necessary sections but is somewhat verbose, especially the privacy notice. It could be more concise while retaining key information.

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?

Despite missing output schema details, the description covers purpose, limitations, cache behavior, privacy considerations, input arguments, and output structure. It is sufficient for a monitoring tool with moderate complexity.

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 0% (only entity has a brief description). The description lists parameter names but provides no additional semantics, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 that the tool performs sentiment analysis of media reporting, with specific details on language support (DE and EN) and cache TTL. It is distinct from sibling tools like news_search or news_top_headlines.

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 sentiment analysis but does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-to-use guidelines. It mentions language limitations and a privacy warning, but lacks direct guidance on alternative tools.

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