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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data fields returned (Gleditsch-Ward codes, region, years, latest deaths) and an example call, which adds some context but not rich behavioral detail beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction.

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 plus an example. The purpose is front-loaded, the use cases are clearly stated, and the example demonstrates usage without bloat. Every sentence adds value and the structure 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explicitly lists what data is returned (countries with codes, region, years, deaths). It covers the optional parameters and gives a concrete example. For a simple lookup tool, this is complete – an agent knows exactly what it will get and how 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – all three parameters (query, region, min_deaths) have clear descriptions. The description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond an example usage, which is helpful but does not explain format or behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 states exactly what the tool does: lists UCDP-coded countries with Gleditsch-Ward codes, region, years covered, and latest-year deaths. It distinguishes itself from sibling UCDP tools by focusing on the country list, and even names two distinct use cases (resolving a country name/code before other UCDP tools, or ranking by deaths).

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('resolve a country name or code before calling other ucdp tools') and when to use it for ranking. It implies that for conflict/event data, other tools should be used, but it does not name specific alternative tools or explicit exclusion conditions. Clear context with a slight gap in explicit when-not.

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