查询国际新闻

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/read-only burden is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond the schema: supported sources, bilingual results, and normalized/deduplicated/citable output.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the main action, source scope, language support, and output qualities are all front-loaded.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this one-sentence description leaves too much unspecified: date-range format, sort behavior, category filtering, and result structure are absent.

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% and the description compensates only minimally—it maps the language concept to en/zh but never explains to/from, sort, limit, category, or source_ids semantics. Parameter names and enums remain the only clues.

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?

States a specific verb '查询' and resource 'international sources' with examples (NPR, France 24, Sky News, GDELT), and notes language support. It distinguishes from search_china_news by source scope, but does not clearly differentiate from aggregate_international_news.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The international-source framing only implicitly separates it from the China-news siblings, and there is no mention of when to choose aggregate vs search tools.

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