Market news and notices

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: the Mofid-only source, the Jalali date convention, and the fact that results are the newest N taken from the site. It does not mention rate limits, failure modes, or freshness lag, which would be the remaining useful disclosures for a feed tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then source constraint, then routing — good ordering. The closing sentence repeats the br_announcements routing already stated in line two, which is wasted space in an otherwise tight definition.

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 should hint at what comes back; it implies a list of recent items with text truncated per the chars parameter and confirms the source and date convention. Adequate for a simple read-only feed tool, though it never states the return shape (headline/link/date fields) explicitly.

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%, with enum values and defaults all documented in the schema itself, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the Jalali date note (which applies to returned values, not inputs). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the newest market news items') and enumerates exactly the four content types covered: exchange notices, Codal letters, Telegram posts, Mofid research. An agent can distinguish this from br_announcements without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use br_announcements for a company's filing history') and a source constraint ('Source: Mofid only'). The one gap is the overlap created by kind='filings', which returns latest Codal letters here while br_announcements covers filing history — the boundary is only loosely drawn, and the alternative is repeated twice rather than used to sharpen that distinction.

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