gdelt_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses "free, no key" (no auth required), but says nothing about rate limits, result format, pagination, or how the two modes behave differently — which is the key operational trait of this tool. One useful disclosure against many gaps.

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?

Two compact fragments, front-loaded with the tool's identity and the key practical fact (free, no key). Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly the same under-specification penalized elsewhere.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a critical mode enum left unexplained, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from this text which mode to pick or what a call will return, so it is not complete enough to invoke correctly without opening the schema.

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 only 25% (timespan alone is documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving query, mode (including its artlist/timelinevol enum choice), and maxrecords unexplained in both schema and description. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("global news article search/trends") tied to the GDELT dataset, which an agent can recognize. It is clearly differentiable from the finance/registry siblings (sec_edgar, world_bank, hkma), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with anything. It stops just short of pinpointing scope, so a 4 rather than 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?

"Great for news volume and cross-outlet coverage" implies the intended use case, giving the agent a rough sense of when it fits. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the artlist vs timelinevol choice, and no named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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