gdelt_tone_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'average tone scores (negative = negative coverage, positive = positive), trend summary, and timeline,' which describes the output behavior. However, it lacks details on data source, limitations, or whether it is read-only. This is adequate but minimal.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by a use case. Every sentence earns its place; there is no wasted text.

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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (tone scores, trend summary, timeline). It could be improved by mentioning the output format (e.g., JSON) or data scope, but it is essentially complete for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond suggesting the 'query' is a topic. It does not elaborate on the timespan, sourcelang, or sourcecountry parameters, so no additional value is provided.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Analyse the sentiment and tone of global news coverage for a topic over time.' It specifies the verb (analyse), resource (global news coverage), and output (average tone scores, trend summary, timeline). This distinguishes it from sibling GDELT tools like gdelt_geo_events and gdelt_news_search, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides usage context: 'Great for brand monitoring or tracking public sentiment.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would be helpful given the sibling GDELT tools. Still, the guidance is clear enough.

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