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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: all six layers run large with two truncating, one or two layers return deeper, and row_limits discloses what was in force to distinguish exhausted vs cut-off layers. That is meaningful nuance beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layer mechanics, then truncation semantics, then opt-in layers. Dense with parentheticals, but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the tool covers parameters, defaults, layer behavior and truncation. Complete enough to invoke correctly; lacking only explicit sibling routing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: days_back is documented as 1..90 with default 7, and layers enumerates the six named values plus comma-separated syntax and two opt-in layers. Minor gap: no format/type clarification for the string-typed params.

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+resource (geopolitical events over a look-back window) plus scope and payload categories (conflict, chokepoints, sanctions). It names the layer vocabulary and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_risk_radar and get_catalysts by being the raw event feed.

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?

Clear guidance on narrowing with layers, on which layers are in the default set, and on the opt-in reference layers (disasters, displacement). It doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling tool for when a different view is wanted, which keeps it from a 5.

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