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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, non-idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety surface is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by enumerating the returned fields in the absence of an output schema and by requiring URL citation in answers. It still omits result volume, freshness guarantees, and how region/timelimit interact.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and what it returns, the second gives the citation rule. No filler, no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

With five parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by specifying the shape of each result item. What remains missing is guidance on the optional filters and on result volume, a minor gap given the modest complexity.

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 80%, and two parameters have enums, so the schema already carries most semantic weight. The description adds only the vague '近期' hint, which does not map to the timelimit enum values or clarify the region pattern or max_results cap. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('搜索近期新闻'), names the return fields (title, URL, snippet, date, source), and sets the 'recent' scope. It does not differentiate this tool from the sibling web_search, so an agent must infer that this is the news-oriented variant.

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 word '近期' implicitly steers the agent toward time-bounded news queries, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over web_search, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. The agent gets no explicit routing rule.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and mutability are covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return payload shape (title, URL, snippet) despite there being no output schema, and by imposing an obligation to cite URLs, though it says nothing about result caps (max 30), rate limits, or that results are non-deterministic across calls.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result fields, with no filler. The second sentence is a downstream formatting rule rather than tool behavior, but it still earns its place by telling the agent how to use the output.

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?

With 5 parameters, 80% schema coverage, no output schema and a sibling tool, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It leaves gaps on when to choose it over news_search and on the effect of region/timelimit filtering, which matter 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 80%, so the schema already documents query, region, timelimit and max_results; only safesearch lacks a description but carries an enum and a moderate default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (搜索实时网页) and states the returned fields (titles, URLs, snippets), so the agent knows exactly what action it performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling news_search, so the agent must infer that this covers general web results while the sibling covers news.

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?

Usage is only implied: the second sentence says to cite result URLs in answers, which hints that this tool is meant for answering questions that need sourced citations. There is no explicit when-not, no prerequisite, and no statement about when to prefer news_search over this tool.

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