get_company_news

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 only notes that links come 'when available,' which is a minor detail. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, how date ranges are interpreted, whether pagination exists, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the relevant market scope and the 'links' qualifier. It earns its place with minimal words.

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?

Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It doesn't explain what the news contains, how the date range is used (e.g., inclusive vs. exclusive), whether results are sorted, or what format the links appear in. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 mentions none of the parameters (ticker, start_date, end_date). It doesn't specify ticker formatting (e.g., symbols for A-share vs US), date formats, or how these parameters interact. The agent must infer all semantics from parameter names alone, which is inadequate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('company news'), and the scope ('A-share or US equity'), and mentions links as an optional feature. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_stock_prices or get_company_fundamentals without additional context.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., get_market_signals, get_financial_statement). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The only implied context is that it's for news, but it doesn't explain when an agent should prefer this over other tools.

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