stock_news

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It uses the read-only verb 'Get' and mentions 'recent' and a limit, which conveys basic behavior, but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or data source caveats. There is no contradiction, but the behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds value, including examples and default behavior, with no redundant 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 an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: required ticker, optional limit, and default. It lacks usage guidance and edge-case behavior, but the core calling contract is complete.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining ticker as an Indian stock ticker symbol with concrete examples and defining limit as the maximum number of articles with its default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Get recent news articles for a specific Indian stock,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and domain. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like technical_analysis and stock_quote, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use stock_news versus alternatives such as market_overview or analyst_recommendations. The only implied context is 'specific Indian stock,' but there are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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