gdelt_news_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that no API key is required and lists returned fields, but it does not disclose result ordering, rate limits, pagination behavior, or other operational details beyond annotations and schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields and a useful constraint. There is no filler and every sentence adds something relevant.

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?

Given rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and return fields sufficiently for an agent to invoke it. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and when to choose this over sibling GDELT 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, such as query syntax examples or date filter behavior, so it only meets the baseline when the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: search global news via the GDELT Project, and lists the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from GDELT siblings such as gdelt_tone_analysis, gdelt_geo_events, or gdelt_trending.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of use cases beyond generic news search. The only contextual note is that no API key is required, which is useful but not usage guidance.

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