get_news_data

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic purpose. It does not mention data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). Since annotations are absent, the description carries full responsibility but fails to provide sufficient behavioral 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?

The description is a single concise sentence in Chinese. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without extra words. However, it could be slightly more descriptive (e.g., mention output format or example) without losing conciseness.

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 existence of an output schema and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with many sibling tools, additional context (e.g., news sources, date range) would help the agent select the right tool. The description lacks coverage of what the tool does not do or its limitations.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage; both parameters (symbol and output_format) are documented with descriptions and enum values. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 stock-related news data (获取股票相关的新闻数据). The verb '获取' (get) and resource 'news data' are specific. Combined with the required 'symbol' parameter in the schema, the purpose is unambiguous. However, it could be more descriptive by specifying 'for a given stock symbol'.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., get_realtime_data, get_hist_data). There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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