fetch_today_crypto_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that data comes from a live RSS feed or explicit demo fixtures, and it clarifies the timezone. However, it does not mention behavior for a null date, whether the operation is read-only, limits/pagination, or failure modes.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and date scope, then adds mode detail compactly. Every phrase adds information.

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 is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return format is not the main gap. Still, with no annotations, the description should clarify what a null date means (presumably 'today'), how limit behaves, and what demo mode returns. The current description is viable but leaves those invocation-relevant details to inference.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful semantics for date (YYYY-MM-DD, Asia/Seoul) and mode (live RSS vs demo fixtures), mapping onto two parameters. The limit parameter and the meaning of the default null date are left undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a clear verb and resource: collect crypto news for a specified date. It also adds the important Asia/Seoul timezone qualifier, making the tool's behavior unambiguous. The contrast with sibling names (summarize, evidence, insights) makes it easy to distinguish this as the raw news-fetching step.

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 points out the live vs. demo mode, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as summarize_crypto_news or analyze_crypto_insights. An agent must infer from context that this is the first-stage fetcher rather than being told when to prefer it or when not to use it.

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