aggregate_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors such as the deduplication logic, similarity threshold semantics, and default platform/date handling. However, it does not mention whether the tool triggers live crawling, whether it mutates data, or any rate limits or prerequisites, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 title, summary, labeled Args section, Returns section, and Examples. Every section adds value, and the text is concise with no filler. The examples provide concrete usage patterns, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 five optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema only referenced in text, the description covers the core functionality, parameter meanings, and return format. It lacks explicit usage guidance vs sibling tools and potential error conditions, but these are not critical for a read-only aggregation tool. The description is complete enough for most invocation scenarios.

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% since the input schema properties lack descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters: date_range, platforms, similarity_threshold, limit, and include_url, including defaults, value ranges, and examples. 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 function: it aggregates cross-platform news by merging similar reports of the same event into one item, displaying cross-platform coverage and comprehensive popularity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_news or get_latest_news, which do not perform deduplication or coverage analysis.

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 context for when to use the tool: when you need deduplicated cross-platform news coverage. It also explains default behaviors (e.g., date_range defaults to today, platforms defaults to all). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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