get_news_sentiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior: returns news articles, sentiment scores, and an overall sentiment summary, plus the limit default. However, it does not mention read-only guarantees, error behavior, ticker validation, sentiment scale, or any external data source caveats.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every line adds value, with key information front-loaded and no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 lookup with only two parameters and an output schema available, the description covers the essential calling contract: what it does, the main parameters, and the return shape. It lacks explicit alternative routing, but this is a minor gap given the tool's self-contained purpose.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: ticker with concrete examples ('AAPL', 'MSFT') and limit with its default and meaning ('Maximum number of articles to return'). This is strong compensation for the bare JSON schema.

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?

Opening line states a specific verb ('Get'), specific resource ('news articles and sentiment analysis'), and scope ('for a stock'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling quote, technical indicator, and trading tools without ambiguity.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: fetch news sentiment for a stock. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions, so the agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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