get_news_by_date

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It provides meaningful behavioral details: supported date_range formats, default behavior of 'today', platform defaulting to all, limit maximum of 1000, and include_url default false to save tokens. It also states the return shape. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only fetch tool the coverage is strong.

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 well structured withArgs and Returns sections, each line earning its place. The purpose sentence is front-loaded, and parameter details are grouped clearly. Slightly verbose due to the format details, but that detail is essential given there are no schema descriptions.

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 four-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema and zero required parameters, the description is nearly complete: it covers defaults, constraints, example values, and return contents. It doesn't explicitly mention sort order or what happens on invalid input, but those are minor gaps given the output schema and the otherwise thorough parameter documentation.

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 fully, and it does. Each parameter is explained beyond its type: date_range gets concrete examples and accepted formats, platforms gets an example list, limit gets default and max, and include_url gets a default plus the rationale '节省token'.

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 verb and resource: '获取指定日期的新闻数据' (get news data for a specified date), and frames it for historical analysis and comparison. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_latest_news, which targets current news, and search_news, which implies query-based retrieval.

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 clear usage context: historical data analysis and comparison, which implies this is the tool to use when a specific date range is needed rather than the latest items. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the date-centric framing and sibling names make the intended use clear.

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