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 burden. It discloses default values, token-saving behavior via include_url, and notes the return format (JSON list). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention potential errors/rate limits. The get-verb implies safety, but not fully explicit.

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 an intro sentence, an Args section listing parameters with concise explanations, and a Returns note. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary repetition or filler. The length is appropriate for 4 parameters.

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 description covers all parameters, return format, and usage context. It also notes the output contains title, platform, ranking, etc. With an output schema present, return details need not be exhaustive. Minor gaps include not listing valid platform IDs explicitly (though examples are given) and not describing sorting order, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a retrieval tool.

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?

The schema provides only basic types (anyOf object/string/null, integer, boolean) with no additional details. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: date_range formats (range object, natural language, single day, default), platforms example with default behavior, limit default/max, and include_url default with 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 it retrieves news data for a specified date, with the purpose of historical analysis and comparison. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest_news (current news) and search_news (search by query). The verb '获取' plus resource '新闻数据' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for use ('用于历史数据分析和对比'), implying it is for historical queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, though the intent is evident from the tool name and parameters.

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