证券自媒检索：获取相关证券自媒体资讯

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has rate limits, authentication requirements, what format the results come in, or any behavioral characteristics. The description is purely functional without any operational context.

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?

While technically concise (a single phrase), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load critical information and fails to provide any meaningful context. Every word in the description merely repeats information already available in the name and title, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 that this is a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. While there is an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to provide essential context about what this tool actually does, when to use it, or how it behaves. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools dealing with securities information (officialSecuNews, etfRelatedNews, sectorNewsAnalysis, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique - whether it's for unofficial sources, specific content types, or particular use cases. The description offers zero contextual guidance.

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