COMPAMIR News

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses that items include plain-language notes and source links, but does not mention ordering, pagination behavior beyond the 'limit' parameter, or any idempotency/side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output structure without any unnecessary words.

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 a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key output details (notes and links). Missing explicit ordering information, but otherwise complete.

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 50% (only 'since' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning for either parameter, leaving the 'limit' parameter's semantics fully dependent on the schema defaults and constraints.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list' and the specific resource: events where reporting diverges across sources (conflicts). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'get_event' and 'search_events' by focusing on conflicts.

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?

Implicitly clear that this tool is for listing conflict events, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_events' for broader searches.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses deduplication, language handling, source links, and AI processing limitations. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema, though missing explicit safety/read-only indication.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then features, then caveats. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate parameter notes) but overall efficient.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers output format (source links) and general behavior but lacks details on sorting, pagination, or how parameters interact. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for agent invocation.

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 only 38%, with only query, since, and until described. The description mentions 'free-text title search' which maps to query, but other parameters (lang, genre, region, status, limit) have no additional semantic guidance in the description. This fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action (search), the resource (COMPAMIR structured news events), and adds key attributes (deduplication, languages, source links). It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_event for single event, list_conflicts for conflicts).

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?

Description implies usage for searching events but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings or mention prerequisites (e.g., required parameters). The note about AI processing suggests caution, but no direct alternatives listed.

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