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 adds real behavioral context beyond that - what the data actually reveals (content-targeted blocking, e.g. TCP-reset for messaging vs DNS-poisoning for news) - without covering pagination or output format.

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 front-loaded clauses with the core purpose first, then a concrete illustration, then parameter guidance. The 'e.g.' example is somewhat long but earns its place by clarifying the emission insight; no redundant sentences.

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 conceptually (per-category technique composition). A single optional parameter tool with readOnly annotation is well covered, though return shape (list/aggregate format) is left implicit.

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 the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 semantics are already documented. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the default behavior when the parameter is omitted (global view), which the schema alone does not state.

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: it returns the blocking-technique composition per content category, with concrete examples (news, communication tools, anonymity/VPN, search, adult). The 'by category' axis implicitly distinguishes it from sibling get_censorship_by_region, letting an agent pick the right one without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to vary scope: 'Omit country_code for a global view; add it to see one country.' That is clear when-to-use guidance conditioned on the parameter, though it names no alternative sibling tool or exclusion.

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