generate_summary_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details such as the date_range format requirement ('必须是对象格式，不能传递整数') and the return format (JSON with Markdown), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires any preconditions.

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 and Returns sections, and every line adds value. It is slightly longer than necessary but not verbose, and the critical type warning is clearly highlighted with bold and examples.

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?

Given the tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose, parameter formats, and return format. It lacks usage guidelines and preconditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct tool invocation.

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 fully compensates. It explains report_type as 'daily/weekly', and gives date_range a detailed format, example, and a warning about the object type. This adds far more meaning than the bare schema types.

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: '每日/每周摘要生成器 - 自动生成热点摘要报告' (daily/weekly summary generator - automatically generates hot topic summary reports). The verb 'generates' and the resource 'summary report' are specific, and the daily/weekly scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like aggregate_news or analyze_trends.

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 implies usage through the 'daily/weekly' qualifier, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No comparison with sibling tools is provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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