search_related_news_history

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the threshold calculation (70% keyword overlap + 30% text similarity), limit behavior (max 100, actual returns may be fewer), include_url token savings, and time_preset options. No contradictions.

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 sections for purpose, args, returns, and display strategy. It is verbose but every sentence adds value. A slight reduction could improve conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers inputs and display strategy comprehensively. It references the output format but does not detail output schema fields (though an output schema exists). Missing error handling or edge cases, but overall sufficient for agent use.

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%, but the description compensates by detailing every parameter: reference_text as news title, time_preset with enum values, threshold with formula, limit with default/max, and include_url token savings. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose: searching for related news in historical data based on a seed news reference. It specifies the reference_text as a seed and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on historical data and providing a display strategy.

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 gives implicit usage context (historical data search) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like find_similar_news or search_news. The display strategy is described, but no when/not-when instructions are provided.

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