news_cctv

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the valid date range and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or pagination, which could be relevant for a data-fetching tool.

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 compact and follows a docstring-like structure with source, parameter, and return sections. Every line provides useful information without unnecessary fluff, though it could be marginally better organized with clear field labels.

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 simple tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the source URL, parameter semantics, and return type. It omits minor details like optionality and behavior on invalid dates, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 compensates well by explaining the `date` parameter's meaning and valid range. It clearly states the data is retrieved for a given date and only available after 2016-02-03, though it does not explicitly spell out the expected date format (YYYYMMDD), which is inferred from the default value.

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 resource as the CCTV News Simulcast (新闻联播) transcript and includes the source URL, making its intent obvious. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'fetch' or 'get', so it falls short of being a fully specific verb+resource statement.

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 communicates a key usage constraint (data available only after 2016-02-03) and implies that the user should supply a date. It does not, however, provide any guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling news-related tools or how to handle invalid or out-of-range dates.

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