get_articles_by_date

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 mentions the default for the 'date' parameter (defaults to today) and parameter formats, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it discuss potential errors or response characteristics. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, with a clear topic sentence followed by a structured argument list. No extraneous text is present, and all information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and defaults. It does not provide information about return values or explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 has zero description coverage for its parameters, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'date' with format and default, 'category' as a filter, and 'tags' as a comma-separated list. This gives the agent all necessary context to correctly provide values.

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 action ('Retourne les actualités' - returns news) and the resource (articles for a given date), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_articles_by_person, but the specificity of the date-based scope is sufficient.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_articles_by_person or get_similar_articles. The description simply states what it does without mentioning use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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