deepstate_war_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It names the source and implies a read-style retrieval of events, but says nothing about update frequency, geographic coverage, freshness, or whether results are current versus historical.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted text, and the resource and source are front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple lookup tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure is covered elsewhere, and the tool has only one optional parameter. However, the description leaves the 'detail' parameter undefined and provides no operational context such as source freshness, making it only minimally 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?

The single optional parameter 'detail' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. An agent can safely omit it because it has a default, but it has no way to know what values are valid or what changing it does.

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 specifies the resource ('geolocated war-news events') and the source ('DeepState map'), which gives an agent a clear idea of what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as deepstate_firms or ukraine_alerts, but the purpose is still clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the crowded sibling set (e.g., news_brief, ukraine_alerts, deepstate_firms). The description only states what it returns, not the conditions or context that should trigger its use.

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