search_related_news_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the threshold calculation formula (70% keyword + 30% text similarity), notes that actual return count may be less than the limit, and explains the reason for the include_url parameter (saving tokens). These details help the agent understand behavior beyond basic operation.

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 long but well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and an important note. However, it could be more concise; for example, the display strategy section could be integrated into the main description. Some redundancy exists.

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 5 parameters and no output schema in the description (though context says there is an output schema), the description covers the output format (JSON list) and key behaviors. The 'data display strategy' adds completeness for user interaction. Still, it could mention error handling or pagination if applicable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It fully explains each parameter: reference_text as news title, time_preset with four explicit preset values, threshold with default and formula, limit with max and note about actual count, and include_url with default and rationale. This goes far beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 the tool searches for related news in historical data based on a seed news reference. It specifies the input as 'reference_text' (news title) and the output as a JSON list with relevance scores and time distribution. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_similar_news' or 'search_news', which could cause confusion.

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 a specific display strategy: show all results unless the user asks for a summary. This gives some usage context but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. No alternatives are mentioned.

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