find_related_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool supports current and historical data, returns JSON sorted by similarity, and mentions '节省token' (saving tokens) regarding include_url. It does not explicitly mention whether it is read-only or has side effects, but the verb 'find' implies a read operation. The description adds useful context about optional parameters and defaults, but lacks explicit statements about safety or side effects, which could be a gap without annotations.

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 clear sections: purpose, args, returns, and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then organizes details logically. Every sentence provides valuable information without redundancy. The structure makes it easy to scan and understand.

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 (5 params, no output schema in view), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter meanings, default behavior, return format, and examples. It mentions sorting by similarity and optional URL inclusion. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 description provides detailed explanations for all five parameters, including meanings, formats, defaults, and ranges. It explains date_range options (preset and custom), threshold with its range and default, limit, include_url (saving tokens), and reference_title. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by providing essential semantic information for every parameter.

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 news title). It specifies a specific verb (find) and resource (related news), and distinguishes it from siblings like search_news by emphasizing the 'related' aspect. This provides clear differentiation.

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 examples and explains parameter behaviors, strongly implying when to use the tool (e.g., to find related news). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use search_news for keyword searches'). It gives sufficient context through examples but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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