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 full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well by explaining defaults ('默认值: 今天'), behavior when platforms are unspecified ('不指定则使用所有平台'), why include_url defaults to False ('节省token'), and the returned JSON content. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or sorting, but the main behavioral traits are transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line adds useful information, and the date_range examples are especially practical 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?

All four parameters are fully explained and the return shape is summarized, so an agent has enough to call the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return fields further. Minor gaps such as ordering or date-range boundary behavior keep it from being a perfect 5.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly documents all four parameters. date_range lists four supported formats with examples, platforms gives an example list and the all-platform default, limit states both default and maximum, and include_url explains the boolean default and its purpose.

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 opens with '获取指定日期的新闻数据' (retrieve news data for a specified date), naming the exact verb, resource, and temporal scope. It further states it is intended for '历史数据分析和对比' (historical data analysis and comparison), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_latest_news.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: retrieving news for a specified date range or for historical analysis and comparison. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use the tool, but the date-based scope provides clear situational guidance.

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