get_company_news

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses caching behavior (no_cache forces fresh source queries) and that results carry source/time/link diagnostics, which is genuine behavioral context. However it omits the freshness/rate implications of no_cache, pagination behavior, and what 'unclassified' means operationally.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, then groups parameter notes compactly. A stray line break inside the sentence is slightly awkward but no sentence is wasted.

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 annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description does a fair job covering scope, limit, and caching, but omits the 'days' lookback window and 'name' filter, and does not describe the shape of the returned diagnostics. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents 4 of 6 parameters and crucially supplies the scope enum values (all/news/announcements) that the schema lacks, plus the six-digit A-share format for code. It says nothing about 'days' (default 7 lookback window) or 'name', leaving two parameters fully undocumented.

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 and resource ("Return ... company news/disclosures") and distinguishes the scope from general market tools by naming the sibling concept implicitly through 'company'. It also signals the diagnostic fields (source/time/link) returned. It does not explicitly contrast with get_market_news, so it falls short of 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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_market_news for market-wide news. The 'unclassified' qualifier hints at raw, unfiltered data but the agent is left to infer when this tool is preferred.

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