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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real behavioral load: it discloses the >=3-network confirmation gate, explains why Africa shows 0 confirmed blocks despite high block fraction, and explicitly labels the confirmed-block counts as a measurement-density map rather than a ranking. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious caveat an agent needs to avoid misreporting the data.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the caveat, then the recommended fields to use. No filler; the honesty caveat is the highest-value content and is given prominent placement.

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 names the returned fields (countries measured, block fraction, confirmed national blocks per region) and explains how to interpret them. For a read-only, single-parameter aggregation tool, nothing an agent needs to call or report on it correctly is missing.

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 parameter is already described, but the description adds specificity beyond the schema by tying level=subregion to 'UN sub-region' and restating the continent default in operational terms. This is modest added value on top of an already-documented parameter.

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 ('Censorship aggregated by world region') and immediately scopes it with the level parameter (continent by default, UN sub-region otherwise), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_censorship_by_category or get_global_heatmap. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

It gives interpretation guidance ('Use block_fraction + countries_measured for context') and warns about the measurement-density trap, which is useful for reading results, but it never states when to choose this tool over the many sibling censorship aggregations (by_category, index, summary). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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