get_latest_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors such as the limit cap (1000), the optional URL inclusion to save tokens, and the fact that actual returned count may be lower. It does not cover rate limits or authentication, but these are less critical for a read-only news retrieval 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 long but well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details and usage recommendations. The additional guidance on data display is valuable for the agent, though some redundancy (e.g., repeating limit info) could be trimmed.

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 tool has an output schema (mentioned in context), the description appropriately omits detailed return value documentation. It instead focuses on usage context, including when to summarize data, and addresses potential user expectations. This completeness helps the agent use the tool effectively.

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 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: platforms (list of IDs, default from config), limit (default 50, max 1000), and include_url (default false, token-saving purpose). It also provides context like platform names for AI recognition.

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 the latest batch of crawled news data for quick understanding of current hotspots. It explicitly lists the parameters (platforms, limit, include_url) and describes the return format, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like search_news and get_news_by_date by focusing on the most recent data.

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 explicit guidance on when to show full data vs. summarize, including a dedicated section on when summarization is appropriate. It also explains the behavior when platforms are omitted (uses config defaults) and notes the actual return count may be less than requested.

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