search_related_news_history

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It details the threshold calculation (70% keyword overlap + 30% text similarity), the behavior of the limit parameter (actual returns may be less), and the default for include_url. This gives the agent a good understanding of the tool's operation.

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 clear purpose statement, bulleted parameter explanations, and a separate display strategy section. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value. Slight redundancy in the '注意' sections could be trimmed.

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's complexity (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers parameter semantics, return format, and display strategy. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail, including the time_preset options, threshold formula, limit behavior, and purpose of include_url. This provides essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 that the tool searches for related news in historical data based on a seed news reference. It specifies the data source and parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'find_similar_news' or 'search_news', which could cause confusion.

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 usage guidance within the parameter explanations and the display strategy section. It tells when to show all results vs. summarize, but does not advise when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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