find_related_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses sorting by similarity, default behaviors (include_url=false saves tokens), and parameter ranges. However, it omits details on error handling, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only (though inferable). Could be more comprehensive.

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 Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded. It is efficiently concise without missing essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters, defaults, and usage examples. It lacks mention of error cases or behavior when no results are found, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use confidently.

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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. It provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters: reference_title (partial/full), date_range (with presets and custom format), threshold (range and meaning), limit (default 50), and include_url (default false, token saving). This adds significant value beyond the schema types.

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 finds related news based on a reference title, supporting current and historical data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_news and get_latest_news by focusing on finding similar content to a given article.

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 for finding related news when given a reference title, and provides options for date range. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative siblings like search_news for broader queries.

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