aggregate_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose defaults, the similarity threshold semantics, and the JSON return shape, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers any background work, or potential rate/error behavior, leaving gaps.

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-organized: a brief summary, a compact Args block, Returns, and Examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and every section earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, all parameters, return shape, and examples. The main gaps are the underspecified date_range format and the lack of explicit usage boundaries, so it is nearly complete but not fully.

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%, and the description fully compensates: every parameter gets a plain-language explanation, default value, and often a concrete range or example (e.g., similarity_threshold 0.3-1.0, platforms ['zhihu', 'weibo']). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: cross-platform news aggregation with deduplication and merging of similar reports, using a specific verb (聚合/去重合并) and resource (news). It distinguishes behavior from sibling fetch/search tools, but it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 intended use case is implied by the summary and argument descriptions, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_latest_news or search_news, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is inferable but not direct.

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