Get Company News

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

Annotations already note readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is transparent. The description adds that results are articles, supports pagination, and allows optional date filtering, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though 'recent' is left undefined.

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, efficiently written sentence that leads with the core action and object, and includes the key modifiers (pagination, date filtering) without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only news retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and simple behavior, the description is adequate. It does not explain the return structure, but no output schema exists and the tool's behavior is straightforward. The vagueness of 'recent' is a minor gap.

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 100% and every parameter has its own description. The tool description merely echoes pagination and date filtering without adding any new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (recent news articles for a company), and distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which focus on financial metrics, tickers, and exchanges. The scope is clear and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving company news, and no sibling tool covers news, so the use case is evident. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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