gdelt_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing behavioral: no note on query syntax expectations, result volume, pagination, rate limits, or freshness. Naming the GDELT DOC 2 API is the only substantive hint, and it presumes prior knowledge of that API.

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 with no filler, so nothing is wasted — but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of economy. It is concise and under-specified in equal measure.

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?

Placeholder — see corrected value below.

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 0% for the single 'q' parameter, which defaults to 'conflict'. GDELT query syntax (boolean operators, phrases, source/domain filters) is non-obvious, and the description says nothing about it, leaving the only parameter effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'article-level search across global news', plus the upstream API (GDELT DOC 2). That is enough to know what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from news siblings such as news_analysis, news_brief, or fact_check.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the several sibling news/analysis tools an agent could otherwise pick. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is raw article retrieval rather than synthesized news analysis.

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