get_news_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'latest news headlines' but doesn't specify recency (real-time, last hour, last day), source reliability, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the headlines return. For a news retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation, though it could be slightly more informative given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

Given the complexity of a news retrieval tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the headlines return (just headlines? with timestamps? with links?), how 'latest' is defined, source reliability, or error conditions. For a tool that presumably returns structured news data, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filtering options' generally, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, typical use cases, or semantic meaning beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get latest news headlines for financial markets with filtering options'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('news headlines'), and domain ('financial markets'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like get_market_economic_calendar or get_stock_info), which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 30+ sibling tools on the server (including other market data tools like get_market_economic_calendar and get_stock_info), there's no indication of when this news-focused tool is appropriate versus other data sources. The description mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't explain when those filters should be applied.

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