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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds further behavioral context: output includes source metadata and native caveats, missing data is explicit null, pagination uses stable cursors, and records never identify people or operational locations. This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the return scope and key output traits; the second adds a single high-value privacy constraint.

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 five-parameter read-only query with an output schema present, this description covers the resource scope, output traits, pagination, and privacy boundary, which is enough to invoke correctly. It omits alternative-tool routing, but that is already scored under usage guidelines and is not required to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'country-year' to iso3/year, names the two domain values, and implies cursor/limit via 'stable cursor pagination'. However, it does not explain limit bounds, cursor format, or the 'all' domain option, leaving the schema's patterns, defaults, and enums to carry much of the parameter-meaning burden.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource: country-year organized-crime and firearms-tracing observations. It adds distinctive detail—source metadata, native caveats, explicit null fields, stable cursor pagination, and a privacy boundary—that separates it from siblings like get_entities or get_overview.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when country-year organized-crime or firearms-tracing observations are needed. It also states an implicit when-not ('No records identify people or operational locations'), but does not name an alternative sibling tool or provide explicit routing conditions.

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