search_news

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 behaviors, defaults, and return format, and notes that threshold only applies to fuzzy mode and include_rss toggles RSS results. However, it omits potential edge cases, pagination behavior, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit for a complex tool.

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 appropriately structured: a one-line summary, a cross-tool suggestion, a detailed Args list, Returns, and Examples. Each section serves a clear purpose, and the length is justified by the need to document 10 parameters when the schema provides no descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions), the description is quite complete. It covers all parameters, provides practical examples, and mentions the return structure as JSON with hot list and optional RSS. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return fields, and the guidance to use resolve_date_range addresses a common usage pitfall. Minor gaps remain regarding advanced behaviors, but overall it is sufficient for effective 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides thorough explanations for all 10 parameters, including the meaning of search_mode values, the expected date_range format, platform list usage, and defaults for limit, threshold, and include_rss. The examples illustrate realistic parameter combinations, adding substantial semantic value 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 this is a unified search interface that supports multiple search modes and can simultaneously search hot lists and RSS feeds. The verb 'search' and resource 'news' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_rss and get_latest_news by combining both sources and offering multiple modes.

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 one concrete usage guideline: suggesting a call to resolve_date_range for natural language dates. It implies this is the primary unified search tool, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like search_rss or get_latest_news, nor does it mention exclusions or fallback scenarios.

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