get_news_by_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses parameter defaults (limit=50, include_url=False), platform behavior, and return format. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by '获取' but not explicitly confirmed.

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 a one-line purpose followed by a clear Args section. Each parameter is explained concisely. The date_range section is somewhat detailed, but justified given its complex multi-format support. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool with four optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage, defaults, and return type. It could be enhanced by explicitly noting any error conditions or by mentioning how it differs from get_latest_news or search_news, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates by explaining all four parameters in detail. It describes the various formats for date_range, the behavior of platforms when unspecified, the default and maximum for limit, and the token-saving rationale for include_url. This goes far beyond the basic schema types and defaults.

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 it retrieves news data for a specified date ('获取指定日期的新闻数据') and positions it for historical data analysis and comparison ('用于历史数据分析和对比'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest_news and search_news, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly indicates the tool is for historical data analysis ('用于历史数据分析和对比'), providing clear context on when to use it. It does not name alternative tools for exclusion, but the use case is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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