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. It describes the tool's unified search capability, date handling recommendation, and return format (JSON with hot list and optional RSS results). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation versus something that might trigger background processes.

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, recommendation, args, returns, examples). While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a 10-parameter tool. Some sentences could be more concise, but overall it's efficiently organized with zero wasted 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 complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent parameter documentation and clear purpose. It could benefit from more behavioral context (rate limits, permissions) and explicit sibling tool differentiation, but covers the essential usage information well.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 10 parameters, the description provides excellent compensation. It documents all parameters with clear explanations, default values, format examples, and mode-specific behaviors (like threshold only applying to fuzzy mode). This adds substantial value 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 this is a 'unified search interface' that 'supports multiple search modes' and can 'search hot lists and RSS simultaneously.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (news), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_rss' or 'get_latest_news' beyond mentioning its unified nature.

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 guidance to 'use natural language dates, first call resolve_date_range to get precise date range' which is helpful context. It also mentions the tool's unified nature (hot lists and RSS), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_rss' or 'get_latest_news'.

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