news_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so substantially: it names the source count and outlets, explains the reasoning-model debiasing process, states how verified facts, attributed claims, and rhetoric are separated, and warns that calls may take ~30s when the cache is cold. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or explicit read-only status, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with a clear headline, then adds useful operational detail without excessive repetition. It is somewhat long, but the examples, output fields, and latency note all support correct invocation expectations.

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 the description need not fully document return values, but it still names key returned fields and explains the fact-versus-claim distinction. For a zero-parameter, complex analysis tool, the main remaining gap is routing guidance against sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. There are no inputs whose meaning the description must clarify.

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 clearly states a specific resource and process: cross-source, debiased world-news intelligence that scrapes ~12 named outlets and separates verified facts from attributed claims and rhetoric. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as news_brief, fact_check, or deep_analyze, so it falls short of the top score.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like news_brief, fact_check, gdelt_articles, or deep_analyze. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'world-news intelligence', leaving the agent to infer routing from a large sibling set.

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