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 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.