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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantive caveats the annotations cannot: the total includes connectivity-disruption signals and suspected single-source rows, it is not a confirmed-censorship count, citable_censorship is the confirmed figure, and a count does not prove ongoing censorship. This goes well beyond structured metadata.

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-loads the use case, then delivers return contents, then the critical caveat about the total not being confirmed censorship, then scope limits. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 must explain what comes back, and it does: the breakdown dimensions, citable_censorship, and the earliest/latest dates. Combined with the scope limits and interpretation caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the result 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this sits at 4. The description correctly emphasizes that the result is all-country and unfiltered, which is the relevant semantic point for a paramless tool.

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 outcome: all-country counts of incident records broken out by severity, type and status, plus citable_censorship and earliest/latest dates. It explicitly contrasts scope with siblings by noting it does not filter by country and has no per-site check.

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?

Opens with an explicit use trigger ('Use this for questions about how many incident records...') backed by natural-language example questions. It also states what the tool does not do, which implicitly routes country-scoped or per-site requests to voidly_country_data or voidly_incident_detail.

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