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.