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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the composite data sources and the top-level return fields, but it does not describe freshness, rate limits, auth requirements, or how alert_level values should be 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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the most important fact: that this is a legacy alias. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'intervention signal', but overall it is efficient.

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 tool with four optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the signal composition and the returned fields. It could say more about alert_level semantics, but it is largely complete for selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents region, hours_back, min_confidence, and include_thermal. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clearly identifies this as a legacy alias for geo_intervention_pulse and describes the resource as a composite geopolitical intervention signal built from named sources. It distinguishes itself from the canonical sibling by explicitly calling itself an alias, though it does not state the operation as a verb and relies on the canonical tool for full behavioral meaning.

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?

The phrase 'Legacy alias' implies this should be used only for backward compatibility and that geo_intervention_pulse is the preferred sibling, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the canonical one. The guidance is present but implied rather than stated.

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