negative_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and open-ended nature of the tool. The description adds context about the types of adverse media but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as source coverage, pagination, or result format. This is adequate 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It packs the core action, scope, and purpose efficiently, 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what the tool returns or any limitations (e.g., coverage by country). It does not mention return type, interpretation of results, or that the tool only supports india/global country values. This leaves significant gaps for an agent selecting this tool.

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, but it only mentions 'a company' without explaining the context object or its optional fields (date, country, sector, companyDomain). The schema itself has some descriptions for nested properties, but the tool description adds minimal meaning beyond that.

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: 'Screens news sources for adverse media on a company' and names specific categories (fraud, litigation, regulatory action, layoffs, defaults). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'latest_news' by focusing on adverse media for due-diligence/risk-screening.

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 specifies the intended use context ('for due-diligence / risk-screening purposes'), which helps an agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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