search_news_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the scoping constraint ('Only searches cnyes_archive notes within the last N days'), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or rate behavior. An output schema exists so return shape need not be described here.

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?

Front-loads the scope and the routing sentence, then the args. The Args block largely restates the schema, which is mildly redundant, but overall it is compact and each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and both parameters adequately. The main omission is disambiguation from the other search-related siblings, but the critical information for correct invocation is present.

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, and it does: query is explained as a stock ticker, keyword, or company name with concrete examples, and days is described as the lookback window with its default. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (recent cnyes daily news archives), and explicitly scopes it to cnyes_archive notes. It names the sibling it is not (search_notes) so an agent can distinguish it from the knowledge-base search without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use search_notes for knowledge base search,' giving a clear when-not condition and alternative. It does not differentiate against the other search siblings (search_articles, search_snippets, search_grouped), so it falls short of a full 5, but the primary alternative is named.

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