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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it operates across all 60 countries, returns two distinct lists (probability leaders plus risers and fallers), and signals 'calibrated' probabilities — useful framing since no output schema exists. It omits anything about ordering or truncation behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short framing question, with the broadest and most distinctive claim (platform-wide) front-loaded. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (probability leaders and percentile movers) and the scope of coverage. It does not specify list sizes or ordering, but with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering the parameter, this is close to complete.

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% and the single optional limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 15, max 40). The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (platform-wide early warning) and enumerates the two concrete outputs: highest calibrated shock probabilities and biggest 90-day percentile movers across all 60 countries. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the country-scoped siblings like get_country_risk and get_supply_chain_risk.

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?

Frames usage clearly as the broad, platform-wide triage question ('what should I be watching?'), which implies it is the entry point before drilling into country-specific tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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