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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real substance beyond that: the disruption_score is described as transparent and 0–100, drivers are sourced from real headlines with links, and oil-flow share is attributed to EIA, telling the agent about data provenance and structure. Freshness, caching, and failure modes are unaddressed.

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?

Content is dense and front-loaded with the scenario context, then the payload, then the call condition. The opening 'Scenario "Morning energy check"' label is slightly awkward framing but earns its place by signaling workflow position. No filler sentences.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so by enumerating the per-chokepoint fields and their data sources. An agent knows what it will get back and when to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to misinterpret and the baseline is 4. No parameter guidance is needed or expected.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly which five chokepoints are covered (Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, Suez/SUMED, Malacca, Turkish Straits). Listing the returned fields — status, 0–100 disruption_score, linked drivers, EIA oil-flow share, news signals — makes the scope unmistakable and implicitly separates it from single-point siblings like get_hormuz.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Call this when you need to know whether physical oil routes are disrupted right now.' The embedded scenario chain (get_agent_start -> get_chokepoints -> get_energy_impact) also routes the agent in a workflow. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it versus siblings such as get_geo_energy_flows or get_hormuz, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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