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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds behavior beyond that — a best-first ranking that surfaces real events over single-source outage signals, and the default citable=true filtering behavior. It stops short of describing return shape or volume/pagination behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core purpose and ranking behavior front-loaded. The sentence about the human-readable ID format earns its place by flagging citability, though it is slightly tangential to invoking the tool.

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 still notes the citable ID format and the ranking/ordering behavior, and the readOnly annotation covers the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a simple filtered list tool.

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 all four parameters (limit, citable, country, min_sources) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only re-explains citable (its false branch) and adds no syntax or semantics for limit/country/min_sources, matching the baseline for schema-dominated definitions.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get citable censorship incidents') and adds scope/ordering ('multi-source, evidence-backed, ranked best-first'), distinguishing citable incidents from raw single-source IODA outage signals. It does not name any of its close siblings (e.g., get_incidents_since, get_incident_detail), so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 one explicit conditional ('Set citable=false to include raw outage signals'), which hints at when to loosen filtering, but offers no when-to-use guidance relative to the many incident-related siblings or any exclusions. Usage is largely implied rather than stated.

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