get_news_by_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format (JSON with title, platform, rank), default behavior (limit=50, date_query defaults to '今天'), and includes important advice on data display (show all unless user requests summary). It does not mention destructive actions or auth, but covers key behavioral aspects well.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns, notes). The note about data display is relevant but somewhat lengthy. Overall, it is efficient and informative, though a bit verbose in the display advice section.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description does not need to detail return values. It thoroughly explains all input parameters, provides usage advice, and addresses potential AI behavior (avoiding unnecessary summarization). The description is complete for a historical news retrieval tool with good context for agents.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with examples and context: date_query with natural language and date formats and default, platforms with config reference, limit with default and max and note about possible fewer results, include_url with default and token-saving rationale. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 '获取指定日期的新闻数据，用于历史数据分析和对比', which specifies the verb (获取), resource (新闻数据), and scope (指定日期). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_latest_news and search_news by emphasizing historical analysis and date-based retrieval.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like get_latest_news or search_news. While it implies use for historical data, it lacks direct 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' statements, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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