free_news_search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data source, or result structure. It only states that it returns 'Text content', which is insufficient for an agent to understand potential side effects or limitations.

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 relatively concise, listing parameters in a clear Args/Returns format. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary prose, though the Args section could be more compact.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks important context: it does not clarify the output format beyond 'Text content', nor does it explain the meaning of parameters like 'time_range' or 'safe_search'. Although an output schema is indicated as present, the description does not leverage it to fill gaps.

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 description provides defaults and informal types for parameters, adding some meaning beyond the schema (e.g., language default '中文', safe_search default 1). However, there are conflicts with the schema (e.g., safe_search type is string in schema but described as int, language default differs). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but is not fully reliable.

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 starts with '新闻搜索' (news search), clearly indicating the tool's purpose as a news search engine. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'free_general_search' or 'free_image_search', which could lead to confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description only lists parameters without explaining the context or conditions for using news search over other search types.

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