aggregate_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes merging and deduplication as an analytical/query operation and states that it returns JSON results, implying it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. It adds useful context about coverage statistics but lacks explicit non-destructive guarantees.

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, explanation, Args, Returns, and Examples. It front-loads the core purpose and then details parameters. For five optional parameters, the length is reasonable and informative, without excessive verbosity. The examples are helpful for quick understanding.

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's complexity (deduplication, cross-platform merging, multiple optional filters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation aspects. It explains the return contents (dedup statistics, list, platform coverage) and provides example calls. It does not describe pagination or how similarity threshold maps to strictness beyond the stated range, but these are minor in light of the output schema.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with defaults and examples. It clarifies date_range, platforms (with example list), similarity_threshold (with range and default), limit, and include_url. Minor gaps: valid platform IDs are not enumerated, and the exact format of date_range (object vs string) is vague, but overall it adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: '跨平台新闻聚合 - 对相似新闻进行去重合并' (cross-platform news aggregation - deduplicate and merge similar news). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_latest_news or search_news by emphasizing cross-platform merging of the same event into a single aggregated news item with coverage and popularity metrics.

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 purpose implies usage context (when you need cross-platform aggregated news), and examples show typical calls, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention how it differs from search_news or find_related_news, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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