get_stock_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the data source (东财) and the shape of the returned content, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, caching/freshness, or how far back news is retrieved. An output schema exists, so return structure is covered elsewhere.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and return fields front-loaded; no filler. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource, source, and result fields adequately. The gap is the undocumented required 'symbol' format and 'limit' behavior, which leaves an agent guessing on invocation details.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never explains the expected symbol format (e.g., bare code vs. exchange-prefixed) nor the meaning/effect of the 'limit' parameter despite its default of 20.

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 names a specific verb+resource (individual stock news from East Money) and even enumerates the returned fields (title/summary/publish time/source/link), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of get_kline/get_fund_flow/get_index_spot overlap with news, so differentiation is implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'news' in the description.

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