get_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds rich behavioral context beyond these hints: specifying the data source (Alpha Vantage NEWS_SENTIMENT), detailing output fields (headlines, source, summary, sentiment label/score), and highlighting the nuance of per-ticker sentiment within multi-ticker articles. No contradictions with 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 tightly structured: it opens with the core purpose, then covers filters, output content, ideal use cases, and a sibling pairing suggestion. Every sentence serves a distinct function, with no redundancy or filler.

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 feed tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, this description is complete. It tells the user what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it complements market_radar. There are no significant gaps in context.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of tickers ('per-name news + sentiment'), giving topic examples ('earnings', 'mergers_and_acquisitions'), and suggesting a practical usage pattern ('pass the portfolio's tickers'). This goes beyond the schema's basic filter descriptions.

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 'News feed with per-ticker sentiment scores (Alpha Vantage NEWS_SENTIMENT)', identifying the tool as a news retrieval and sentiment analysis service. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning sentiment scores and per-ticker breakdowns, and by naming complementary tools like market_radar.

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 explicit use cases ('any news on X?', 'what's driving X today?', 'portfolio-wide news roll-up') and names an alternative/complement: 'Pair with market_radar for the full what's happening briefing.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings.

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