search_news

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. It explains search modes, defaults, threshold behavior, and the optional inclusion of RSS results and URLs. It also describes the return format. However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, pagination, or platform-specific behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 brief summary, a practical usage tip, bullet-point parameter definitions, return format, and examples. Every section adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan despite the large number of parameters. No redundant or fluff content.

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 high parameter count (10) and absence of annotations, the description covers all needed aspects: parameter semantics, defaults, return format, and multiple usage examples. The examples illustrate common use cases including RSS inclusion and custom date ranges. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external documentation.

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 sole source of parameter meaning. It explains every parameter in detail, including valid values, defaults, and formatting for date_range, platforms, sort_by, threshold, and the search modes. This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions and adds critical nuance such as the default for threshold and the meaning of fuzzy mode.

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 a unified search interface ('统一搜索接口') that supports multiple search modes and can search both hot lists and RSS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_rss (RSS-only), get_latest_news (latest news), and get_trending_topics (trending), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit advice to call resolve_date_range first when using natural language dates, which is a clear guideline for a common use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_rss or other siblings, though the 'unified' nature implies it is the general-purpose search tool. This is good but not exhaustive.

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