Get news headlines

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds value by disclosing the output structure (`items` with publishedAt, headline, source/provider, category, sentiment label) and the temporal intent ('recent'). It doesn't discuss ordering or pagination, but the added return-shape detail 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 is two sentences: first states the core purpose and return fields, second gives usage context and an explicit alternative. Every clause contributes, with no filler or repeated schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully describes the primary return payload (`items` fields). It also covers when to use the tool and how it differs from the closest sibling. It could mention sorting or sentiment label values, but for a simple read-only headline tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 67% (days and limit have descriptions, ticker does not). The description only says 'for a ticker' without explaining ticker format or clarifying the relationship between days/limit and the news results. It does not meaningfully enhance the parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves 'Recent news headlines for a ticker', with a specific resource and scope. It enumerates the fields returned inside `items` and explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling `stoquant_get_news_events`, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Use for the latest narrative around a stock.' It also explicitly names an alternative, `stoquant_get_news_events`, for a combined news+filings+earnings view, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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