get_news_coverage

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 usefully states that the tool is deterministic and does not expose raw payloads, headers, or secrets, which gives agents a meaningful safety boundary. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what other operational constraints apply.

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 a single, dense sentence with no filler. The primary action, target resource, and a key constraint are all present. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly clearer about parameter usage and sibling differentiation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required from the description. The description states the core purpose and a key security boundary, but for a tool with no annotations and ambiguous sibling overlap, it lacks usage conditions and explicit alternative routing. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 must compensate. It does tie the parameter to a 'target trading date' and gives A-share context, which is helpful. But it does not explain the expected date format, how null is handled, or how the parameter influences the deterministic coverage diagnosis. The parameter meaning is only partially conveyed.

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 uses a specific verb ('diagnose') with a clear resource ('domestic A-share morning-news coverage') and a target trading date. It also adds a distinguishing security constraint ('without exposing raw payloads, headers or secrets'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_morning_news, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_morning_news, generate_morning_brief, or get_previous_close_context. The phrase 'diagnose deterministic coverage' implies an investigative or audit-like use case, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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