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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description instead contributes domain caveats an agent could not infer: source labels are attribution rather than independent corroboration, and status/dates should be checked before treating an incident as current. It stops short of describing the response shape or error behavior for a bad ID.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then returned fields, then the exclusion, then a caveat — a sensible priority order with no filler. The parenthetical provenance list is slightly dense but earns its place by telling the agent where to find the ID.

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 describing returns and does so by enumerating the fields delivered. Combined with the ID-provenance precondition and the attribution caveat, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 baseline would be 3. The description still adds value by explaining where the ID comes from ('from a Voidly page, report or citation') and giving a concrete example format that bridges to the schema's alternation pattern, though it does not mention the hex-hash alternative explicitly.

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?

Names a specific verb ('need that ... incident's details') and resource (one published incident record), then enumerates exactly what comes back: country, title, status, dates, source labels, measurement count. It also states what it is not ('cannot search incidents by country or keyword'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like voidly_country_data and voidly_incident_stats.

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 precondition is explicit and operational: 'Use this when you have a published Voidly incident ID (for example IR-2026-0253, from a Voidly page, report or citation).' The exclusion is equally explicit — no country or keyword search — routing an agent to the search-oriented siblings when it lacks an ID.

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