find_related_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains defaults (date_range defaults to today, threshold=0.5, limit=50, include_url=False), the meaning of threshold, and the return format (JSON sorted by similarity). It also notes include_url is false to save tokens, adding practical context.

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 Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Each line adds value: parameter details, default behaviors, and usage examples. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters and no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description independently explains the return format and sorting. It covers all parameters, defaults, and provides two concrete examples. The tool's complexity (nested date_range) is fully addressed, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly documents every parameter. It explains reference_title, date_range with all supported formats (presets and custom objects), threshold as a 0-1 similarity cutoff, limit as count, and include_url as a token-saving toggle. Examples illustrate valid usage.

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: '查找与指定新闻标题相关的其他新闻' (find other news related to a specified title). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_news (keyword search) and get_latest_news by focusing on similarity to a reference title, and explicitly mentions support for current and historical data.

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: it is for finding related news based on a reference title, with optional date range and similarity threshold. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the examples and parameter details make the intended use unambiguous.

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