find_similar_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as threshold strictness ('阈值越高匹配越严格，返回结果越少'), limit caveats ('实际返回数量取决于相似度匹配结果，可能少于请求值'), and a display strategy instructing to show all results unless the user explicitly asks to summarize. This adds valuable context beyond the schema and 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 purpose, Args, Returns, and a bolded '重要：数据展示策略' section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each section is concise. The display strategy is extra but earns its place by guiding agent behavior.

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?

The tool is simple (4 params, 1 required) and the description covers purpose, all parameters with behavioral notes, return format, and display behavior. With no annotations or output schema details, this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and format the response appropriately.

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 fully compensates. The Args section explains each parameter: reference_title (full or partial), threshold (range and strictness), limit (default/max and caveat), and include_url (default and token-saving rationale). This provides rich semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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似的其他新闻' (Find other news similar to a specified news title). This specifies a distinct verb+resource+method, making it distinguishable from siblings like search_news or get_latest_news, even though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 implies usage (find similar news) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It lacks comparison to sibling tools like search_news or get_news_by_date. The display strategy is about result presentation, not tool selection.

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