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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavioral boundaries: only returns search result summaries and source links, not full article text, and recommends crawl_single for full content. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or result ordering, but the core behavior is transparently described.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, followed by usage context and a clear limitation/alternative. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a full parameter schema and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It effectively covers the main use case, the critical limitation (no full text), and the follow-up action (crawl_single). Minor gaps like pagination or sort behavior are not essential for a search tool of this complexity, so the description is near-complete.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all five parameters (query, region, timelimit, safesearch, max_results). The description adds no extra parameter-level information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles semantics completely.

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 identifies the tool's function: '搜索新闻内容' (search news content). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it returns only summaries and source links rather than full text, and points to crawl_single for full text, making its unique role among the sibling tools clear.

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 states when to use it ('适用于搜索突发新闻、时事、财经、体育等时效性内容') and what it does not do ('不抓取全文'), providing an explicit alternative ('如需全文，请对结果 URL 再调用 crawl_single'). This gives the agent clear selection and follow-up guidance.

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