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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the data is from a preliminary monthly candidate release, and the list is current-year only. This helps the agent set expectations about recency and provisionality.

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 every clause earns its place: purpose, data source, output fields, query examples, and sibling routing. The example at the end is illustrative without being verbose.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields (date, place, coordinates, sides, type, fatalities, source headline). It lacks some details such as pagination or sort behavior, but 'limit' schema covers newest-first ordering, and the examples make invocation clear. Acceptable and only slightly incomplete.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a concrete usage example and lists output fields like fatality best/low/high and type categories, but does not materially deepen parameter semantics beyond the 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 a specific resource ('individual violence events from the newest monthly UCDP GED Candidate release') and lists the exact fields returned. It differentiates the tool from siblings by explicitly naming ucdp_fatalities_summary and ucdp_events as alternatives for other time/aggregation needs.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: use ucdp_fatalities_summary for yearly totals, use ucdp_events for earlier years, and gives realistic query examples. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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