Announcements, news and market messages

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world access, so the description focuses on what those flags cannot convey: newest-first ordering, Jalali dates, that announcements return a PDF url while news returns an id, and that returned text is data rather than instructions. That last point is a meaningful prompt-injection warning absent from any structured field.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose and ordering first, then use cases, then a compact per-source return-shape and safety note. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so at a per-source level (url, id, message text). Missing are pagination limits beyond what the schema states and the fact that all six parameters are optional, meaning an unfiltered call returns the newest announcements across the board.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents page size, enum meanings, and the Jalali date pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the newest-first ordering and repeats that dates are Jalali; it does not explain how `query` and `symbol` interact or whether `symbol` is silently ignored for news and market_messages beyond the schema's brief note.

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 opens with a concrete verb plus resource ('Search Fara Bourse announcements, news and market messages') and names the three sub-corpora it spans, which no sibling covers. It also distinguishes itself from ifb_article by noting news items carry an `id` for that tool.

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?

It gives three explicit use cases (why a symbol is halted, when a bond/IPO starts trading, what the exchange announced on a topic) that map directly onto the source enum. It stops short of naming alternatives such as ifb_halted or ifb_ipos as substitutes for those questions, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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