find_related_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that results are sorted by similarity, that threshold controls strictness, that include_url defaults to false to save tokens, and that omitting date_range limits results to today. It lacks details about authentication, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, but for a read-oriented news lookup these are not critical.

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 short summary, Args section, Returns note, and practical examples. Every section adds value, and the most important behavioral constraints (default date behavior, threshold, token-saving flag) are front-loaded. It is detailed without being bloated.

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 all 5 parameters, default behaviors, return sorting, and usage examples, which is strong for a tool of this complexity. It does not explicitly discuss error handling or authentication, and it does not route the agent away from sibling tools, but with an output schema present and parameter semantics fully covered, it is close to complete.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains reference_title, date_range with all possible formats and values, threshold semantics, limit, and include_url with its token-saving rationale. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 core function: finding other news related to a specified news title, with support for both current and historical data. It uses a specific verb and resource ('查找与指定新闻标题相关的其他新闻') and is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_news or get_news_by_date.

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 operational context, such as default behavior (today only), date range presets, threshold semantics, and examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_news or analyze_topic_trend, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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