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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds data provenance (GDELT-backed with ACLED fallback when licensed), which is useful context, but it does not disclose request behavior such as response shape, pagination, or data-availability conditions.

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 a single sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical data-source note is compact and adds value. The slight mismatch between the stated dimensions and the actual schema is the main cost.

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 seven-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits parameter descriptions, return format, expected result semantics, and example values. Annotations cover safety but not how to construct a valid query or interpret the response.

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 0% and all seven parameters are undocumented, so the description must compensate; it provides only broad categories that roughly map to country/bbox, days, and event_type. The mention of 'actor' has no corresponding parameter, and lat/lon boundary semantics are not explained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and a concrete resource ('armed-conflict events'), and the data-source parenthetical helps distinguish it from other conflict-adjacent tools like query_dark_contact_events. However, the listed query dimensions ('region / date / event type / actor') do not all map cleanly to the schema, which slightly undercuts clarity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as query_dark_contact_events or query_agent_reports, and no exclusions or conditions are provided. The only selection signal is the resource name, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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