aggregate_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 explains the deduplication/merging behavior, cross-platform coverage display, and return format (JSON with dedup statistics and platform coverage). It does not mention potential side effects, but the aggregation semantics strongly imply a read-only operation.

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 with a summary, Args section, Returns section, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. The examples are concise and illustrative.

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 tool's purpose, all parameters, return structure, and examples, making it largely complete for an agent to invoke. It lacks explicit guidance on valid platform IDs and exact date_range syntax, but the output schema and examples mitigate this. Overall, it is a strong, self-contained description.

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. It does so by explaining all five parameters with defaults and meaningful semantics (e.g., similarity_threshold range and strictness, platforms example, include_url purpose). However, the date_range format is left ambiguous (string vs object), which is a minor gap in fully specifying invocation.

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: aggregating news across platforms and merging similar reports into one item. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_latest_news and search_news by emphasizing cross-platform deduplication and comprehensive heat metrics.

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 implies usage for cross-platform news aggregation and deduplication, and provides parameter defaults and examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_news_by_date or find_related_news, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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