UK Data: News and feeds

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a per-call cost of 1 credit, which is meaningful operational context, but it says nothing about result format, pagination, default limit, or which mode wins when both kind and query are supplied.

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 front-loaded sentence covering both browse and search modes plus the cost, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema this is close to adequate, but the missing default-limit behavior and the unresolved overlap with the news_search sibling leave real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their constraints (kind values, limit 1-50, query string). The description adds only the surface-level meaning of the keyword search and does not clarify interactions between kind and query or the default limit.

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 names the resource (Hacker News stories) and the exact operating modes (top, new, best, or keyword search), so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling news_search, which appears to overlap on keyword search, leaving slight ambiguity about source coverage.

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?

It implies usage: pick a feed kind for browsing, or pass a keyword to search. There is no explicit when-not or guidance on choosing between this and the sibling news_search or rss_read, so an agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the GDELT origin and the per-call cost of 1 credit, which is genuinely non-obvious behavioral context. It says nothing about result volume limits, ranking, pagination, or failure modes on empty/oversized windows.

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 short clauses and a cost note, with the capability stated first and the constraint and cost trailing. Every element carries information; nothing is padded.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what it searches and the cost but omits return shape, ordering, and result-cap behavior. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict what comes back.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does clarify that `hours` is a lookback window and `country` filters by source country, which resolves ambiguity in bare "number 1-720" schemas, but `query` receives no explanation at all — including how it interacts with the other filters.

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 gives a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("global online news"), plus the upstream data source (GDELT) and a time-window scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings hacker_news and rss_read by resource type, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and neither sibling (hacker_news, rss_read) is mentioned as an alternative. The only implied routing signal is that this tool is for recency-bounded news queries, which an agent must infer on its own.

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 at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does deliver two concrete facts: the output is JSON items and each call costs 1 credit. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens when the URL is not a valid feed, so the disclosure is partial rather than thorough.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the credit cost appended as a parenthetical rather than buried. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is broadly adequate, but it omits useful edge-case context such as whether it only accepts direct feed URLs, what happens with HTML pages containing feed links, or how results are ordered. The credit cost is the main operational detail it does cover.

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 100%, but the descriptions are degenerate ("string, required" and "number 1-100"), and the description adds no meaning about what url accepts or how limit affects results. Per the high-coverage baseline, a 3 is the correct ceiling here.

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?

"Read an RSS or Atom feed as JSON items" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (RSS/Atom feed) plus the output shape, which is far clearer than the sibling names hacker_news or news_search imply. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from those siblings (e.g., that this requires a known feed URL while news_search discovers articles).

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 no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the sibling tools. An agent has to infer on its own that rss_read is for a known feed URL versus news_search for topic discovery, so selection between them is left entirely to guesswork.

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