news_sentiment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it gets headlines but doesn't clarify whether sentiment scores are included despite the tool name 'news_sentiment'. There is no mention of return format, ordering, pagination, or data source, which could mislead an agent.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a compact, readable argument list. Every word contributes value, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool, the description is mostly adequate, but the mismatch between the tool name ('news_sentiment') and the description ('headlines') leaves a gap about whether sentiment analysis is actually included. Without an output schema, more detail on the response structure and ordering would be valuable.

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%, but the description explains each parameter precisely: 'symbol: Ticker symbol' and 'limit: Number of articles to return (default 10)'. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw type information in the schema.

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 'Get' with a resource 'recent news headlines' and a clear target 'for a stock'. This distinctly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like stock_quote and fundamentals, which focus on price and financial data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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