negative_news

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

The description uses 'Screens' which implies a read-only operation, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also aligns with the openWorldHint by referencing external sources (Glassdoor, Reddit). It does not contradict the annotations, and the behavioral scope is clear from the wording.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function and scope, the second provides an important alternative. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant information.

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 screening tool with a single nested object parameter, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the types of data covered. It lacks details on output format or parameter details, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the parameters, this is acceptable. The mention of the alternative tool adds practical completeness.

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?

The description does not explain any parameters explicitly. It mentions 'about a company' which loosely relates to the 'company' field, but other parameters like country, sector, and companyDomain are not described. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter guidance, leaving agents to infer from names alone.

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 clearly states the tool's function: screening news and public-sentiment sources for adverse media and complaints, and explicitly lists the types of issues (fraud, layoffs, defaults, controversy) and the purpose (due diligence/risk screening). It also names specific sources (Glassdoor, Reddit), making the scope unambiguous.

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 an explicit contrast with litigation_history: 'For hard regulatory/legal records... use litigation_history instead.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs to an appropriate alternative, though it doesn't mention other related tools like latest_news or red_flag_screen.

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