gdelt_trending

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 the output (trend classification and volume data) but lacks details on data freshness, API rate limits, authentication needs, or algorithmic specifics. Basic transparency is present but could be improved.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and output, making it easy to quickly understand.

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 no output schema, the description lists the trend classification values and mentions volume data. However, it could specify the structure of the volume data (e.g., time series format). Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add meaningful extra context beyond the schema. The schema already documents the query, timespan, and sourcelang parameters adequately.

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 action ('Check'), the resource ('whether a topic is trending in global news using GDELT article volume timelines'), and the output (trend classification and volume data). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gdelt_geo_events, gdelt_news_search, and gdelt_tone_analysis by focusing specifically on trending topic status.

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 implies usage for checking trending topics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gdelt_news_search or gdelt_tone_analysis. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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