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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but partially meets it: it discloses the data pipelines (GDELT, RSS, adsb.lol/mil, Polymarket), the analysis method ('booster math'), and that sources are free. It omits return shape, latency, reliability, and how confidence is interpreted.

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-loaded with the core noun phrase, but the single dense sentence is heavy with unexplained jargon ('booster math', 'multi-source + thermal + vessel + mil-aircraft') that costs the agent clarity rather than earning its place.

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 compound 4-parameter analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return format and confidence meaning entirely unexplained. The stated '60min window' also sits awkwardly against hours_back (default 6, max 72), creating ambiguity about the actual time span.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds source/method context but no parameter-level detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific resource ('geo/military tension signal') and enumerates the data sources and scoring method, so an agent can tell roughly what it produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling geo_pulse, leaving the agent to guess which composite geo tool to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternms like geo_pulse or regulatory_pulse. 'Free sources' hints at cost but gives no selection criteria.

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