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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns summaries and not items, which is useful. However, it does not declare whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient for full transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return type, followed by filter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. Ideal conciseness.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema exists, the description covers essential aspects. However, it lacks information about pagination, result ordering, default behavior when no filters are applied, and any limits. With output schema present, the burden is reduced, but additional context would improve completeness for a browse tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' is a title substring, 'post_type' has two specific values ('世界苦茶' or '台海危機ALERT'), and dates are in ISO YYYY-MM-DD format. This adds meaningful semantics to all four parameters. Minor improvement could be a more explicit mapping to schema property names.

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 ('Browse the post catalogue') and its return type ('post-level summaries, not items'). It also enumerates the filtering options, providing specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_post or list_recent, though the filtering scope implies a distinct use case.

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 recommends using at least one filter ('At least one filter recommended') which is a usage hint. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The guidance is minimal and implicit.

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

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

Discloses conditional return behavior (single vs multiple posts) and fields (items, financial_data, summaries). No annotations, so description carries full burden; missing auth needs, rate limits, or error cases.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information.

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?

With output schema present, description covers return format variations. Missing error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Explains 'slug_or_date' parameter with examples ('shijie-kucha-2024-01-15' or ISO date). Schema has no description, so this adds significant meaning beyond type string.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get a full post' by identifier. Distinguishes from sibling tools (discover, list_recent, search_news) which are for discovery, not retrieval by identifier.

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?

Specifies when to use: when you have a slug or ISO date. Implicitly suggests using siblings otherwise, but does not explicitly list alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it lists posts and the returned fields, implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential limits (e.g., max days) or sorting behavior, but is reasonably transparent.

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 concise with two sentences: first states the action, second gives usage hint and output fields. No wasted words.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, usage hint, and output format. It could mention the lack of other filtering options or the recency limit.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage; the description refers to 'last N days' which maps to the 'days' parameter but does not explicitly mention the parameter or its default value. It adds some clarity but not enough for full compensation.

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 'List posts from the last N days' specifying the verb and resource. It provides a usage hint 'Use to orient before searching' which distinguishes it from search tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'discover'.

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 phrase 'Use to orient before searching' gives context for when to use this tool for initial overview. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like 'search_news' or 'get_post'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cross-script behavior (Simplified Chinese matching Traditional Chinese), the return fields, and the inclusive date range behavior. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or ordering, which would be valuable for a search tool. Overall, it provides key behavioral traits beyond the bare minimum.

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 a main sentence, a note on cross-script behavior, and a bulleted parameter list. It is concise without unnecessary words. Minor improvement could be integrating the cross-script note more smoothly, but overall it is clear and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately lists the return fields (slug, section, headline, body, pub_date, seq). It covers the essential search parameters (query, section, date range, limit). However, it lacks details on pagination (e.g., how to get next page) and ordering (e.g., relevance vs date), which would improve completeness for a search tool.

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 adds significant meaning: defines 'query' as free-text, lists valid values for 'section' (e.g., 中国新闻, 印太新闻), specifies date format as ISO YYYY-MM-DD inclusive, and provides a numeric range for 'limit' (1-200, default 20). This greatly enhances the schema's minimal information.

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: 'Search FearNation news items by full-text query.' It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'news items'. It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on full-text querying, whereas siblings like 'list_recent' or 'get_post' serve different retrieval patterns.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor does it mention when not to use it. The sibling tools are listed but no differentiation is offered, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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