news_sentiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses the source fallback chain (yfinance to Yahoo RSS), warns that RSS items may include market-wide stories rather than ticker-specific ones, and explains error semantics ('error' means a source failed; only 'No news found' means genuinely no news). It omits any mention of auth or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 the fallback and error semantics, then a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information; no 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what comes back, where it comes from, how results are attributed, and how to interpret failures. Only the shape of individual article items and the sentiment/name mismatch remain unexplained.

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, and it documents both parameters: symbol as ticker symbol and limit as the number of articles (default 10). It adds little beyond that, though, missing ticker format (e.g., 'AAPL' vs exchange-qualified) and any bounds on limit.

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: 'Get recent news headlines for a stock.' An agent knows exactly what it returns. However, the tool is named news_sentiment while the description never mentions sentiment scoring or analysis, leaving ambiguity about whether the output includes sentiment.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus siblings like report_stock or stock_quote, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; no alternative is named.

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