gdelt_tv_wordcloud

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says it returns a word cloud. The phrase 'for one match' is ambiguous and doesn't explain whether it aggregates across all matching clips, how filtering combines, or what the cloud represents. No safety/read-only indication or output behavior is 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 two sentences and front-loads the core output ('Word cloud for US television news coverage'). It contains no fluff and is appropriately concise, though it could invest one more sentence in clarifying the 'one match' behavior without losing efficiency.

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 17-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'one match' means, how the required channel/station parameters relate to the cloud, or what format the returned frequency-ranked cloud takes. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but tool-level semantics are incomplete.

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%, with all 17 parameters individually documented in the input schema (e.g., 'Cannot be combined with timespan', 'Repeatable; multiple values are OR'd together'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Return a frequency-ranked word/label cloud') and a clear resource ('US television news coverage'), which distinguishes it from sibling GDELT timeline/tonechart tools. It is specific about the output format, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with related GDELT TV tools like gdelt_tv_timeline or gdelt_tv_visual_entities, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling GDELT TV tools, nor any exclusions or conditions. An agent is left to infer that this is for word-cloud generation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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