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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are confirmed across >=3 networks, China is under-counted because GFW is treated as an anomaly rather than confirmed, and shares are computed only over tagged domains. These caveats substantially improve interpretation.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded, leading with the core purpose and then supplying category definitions and caveats. Most parenthetical details earn their place, though the single long paragraph mixes several concepts and abbreviations without much visual structure.

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?

For a read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description covers the key output concepts (focus shares, full category breakdown, primary_focus), the optional country filter, and important data limitations. It could better explain the abbreviated category codes, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, and the single optional country parameter is already documented in the schema with an ISO example. The description adds only that passing country gives one country, which is a minor clarification beyond the schema baseline.

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?

The description states a specific analytical purpose: what each censor targets per country, including category mix, three focus shares, and primary focus. It clearly distinguishes this intent-oriented tool from related sibling tools like get_censorship_by_category by explaining that it reveals WHY a country censors.

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 description gives parameter-level guidance ('Pass country=XX for one country') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_country_profile or get_censorship_by_category. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated with comparisons or exclusions.

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