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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: output includes best/low/high estimates, conflict-type splits, combatant vs civilian victims, named dyads, and country-name resolution to Gleditsch-Ward codes. It also implies the range behavior and yearly granularity without contradicting the schema.

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 dense but efficient: it opens with the core result, then details the breakdowns, then gives query examples and an illustrative call. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly: estimates, dimensions, dyads, date range, and name resolution all are covered. The parameter schema handles the remaining details like year range semantics and required fields.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining that country names resolve to Gleditsch-Ward codes, that years start from 1989, and by giving a concrete example with country and year. This helps the agent understand valid parameter forms beyond the raw schema.

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 provides — death tolls from UCDP country-year data with fatality estimates broken down by conflict type, victim category, and dyads. It uses concrete resource language and the example query makes the purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling UCDP tools focused on conflicts, countries, and events.

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 strong context for when to use this tool: answering questions like 'how many people were killed in the Sudan war in 2024', conflict death tolls, and casualty trends. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use ucdp_events for event-level data', but the query examples and data scope make the intended use clear.

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