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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needs to add useful behavioral context; it does so by enumerating the return fields such as parties, conflict type, intensity, dates, and battle-related deaths. It does not mention sort/limit behavior, but that is documented in the parameter schema, and no described behavior contradicts 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?

The definition is front-loaded with the resource and scope, then uses compact examples to show valid invocations. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing what a returned conflict record contains, along with query examples. With full parameter schema and annotations, nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds an example mapping country/year and restates intensity semantics ('war with over 1,000 deaths'), but it provides no additional parameter nuance beyond what the schema already gives.

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 immediately identifies the resource (UCDP/PRIO armed conflicts) and the core dimensions (country/year), and lists the substantive fields, making it clear this is the conflict-level tool rather than ucdp_events or ucdp_countries. The example queries reinforce the purpose without relying on the title.

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 description gives clear context: use it for conflicts of a country/year and for conflict-level fatality questions, with natural-language example queries. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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