get_news_by_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It explains default behavior for platforms, limit, include_url, and documents that include_url=false saves tokens. It also describes the return format. While it does not discuss permissions or safety, this is a read-only retrieval tool, and the provided behavioral details are sufficient.

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: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a formatted Args section and a Returns section. Every line adds useful information, and the date_range examples are particularly valuable without being verbose.

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 tool with four optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics, defaults, and return behavior. The output schema exists, so detailed return documentation is not required, but the description still usefully lists the news fields. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema: date_range formats are enumerated with examples including range objects, natural language strings, single dates, and defaults. platforms, limit, and include_url are all semantically explained, including default values and token-saving rationale.

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 a specific action: retrieve news data for a specified date, explicitly framed for historical data analysis and comparison. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_latest_news and search_news by scoping the tool to date-based historical 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 provides clear usage context by stating the tool is for historical data analysis and comparison, which implies it should be used when a specific date range is relevant rather than for current/latest news. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is clear enough.

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