Stock News (alias)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool delegates to get_stock_events with a preset type filter, and results come back sentiment-tagged. No contradiction between description and 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: identity (alias), function (sentiment-tagged news for one stock), and a concrete invocation example. No filler or restatement of annotation values.

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 read-only news tool, the description is nearly complete: purpose, alias behavior, output nature, and a minimal invocation example. There is no output schema, and the description could have said slightly more about what a news item looks like beyond the sentiment tag, but an agent can invoke this correctly from the information given.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The example {"symbol":"TCS"} reinforces symbol as the primary identifier, but it largely duplicates what the schema already provides. Notably, the schema marks symbol as "REQUIRED" while the required array is empty — an internal schema inconsistency the description doesn't resolve, though that is not the description's responsibility.

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?

"Sentiment-tagged news for one stock" states the resource (news), scope (single stock), and output characteristic (sentiment-tagged) with concrete example {"symbol":"TCS"}. The alias note ties it directly to get_stock_events with type:"news", distinguishing it from the broader event tool and from market-wide get_market_news.

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 effectively routes the agent by declaring it an alias for get_stock_events with type:"news", which resolves the ambiguity between the sibling tools get_stock_news and get_stock_events. The "for one stock" scoping implicitly distinguishes it from market-wide news tools. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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