latest_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming specific news sources and stating that results are sorted by publish date, but it does not disclose limits, pagination, return shape, or how broad 'recent' is. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and covers the main scope, sources, and ordering. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core operation adequately for a read-only news lookup, and the schema fills in parameter structure. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the returned news items look like (titles, links, summaries), nor is there any guidance on the meaning of daysBack or how this differs from negative_news. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 needed to compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at the 'company' parameter through 'of a company', and it says nothing about 'daysBack', 'date', 'country', or the nested context object structure. The schema provides some field names and defaults, but the description does not help an agent understand how to set these parameters effectively.

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 states a specific action and resource: retrieving recent news coverage of a company, and it names concrete sources and a sort order. It is clear in what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like negative_news or management_commentary, aside from the general word 'coverage'.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that negative_news exists for negative-only coverage, or that management_commentary covers management statements instead of press coverage. The usage context is implied by the name and description but never made explicit.

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