find_related_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses key behavioral traits: supports both current and historical data, returns results sorted by similarity, includes token-saving option (include_url defaulting to False), and specifies default values for optional parameters. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors, but covers core operational behavior adequately for a read-only tool.

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 efficiently structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, followed by organized parameter explanations, return format, and examples. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. The bilingual presentation (Chinese with English parameter names) is consistent and doesn't hinder clarity. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, all parameter semantics, return format (JSON list sorted by similarity), and provides examples. The output schema handles return value details, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that. It gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in detail. It clarifies: reference_title as the target news title (full or partial), date_range options (including presets and custom range format), threshold as similarity score with default and range, limit as result count with default, and include_url as boolean for token conservation. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '查找与指定新闻标题相关的其他新闻' (find news related to a specified news title). It specifies the verb ('查找' - find) and resource ('相关新闻' - related news), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_news' (which likely searches by keywords) or 'get_latest_news' (which retrieves latest news without relation). The inclusion of '支持当天和历史数据' (supports current day and historical data) further clarifies scope.

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 context for usage: it's for finding related news based on a reference title, with support for date filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'search_news' for keyword-based searches or 'get_news_by_date' for date-based retrieval without relation). The examples help illustrate usage but lack explicit exclusion guidance.

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