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 a genuinely valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: shares are coverage-robust percentages rather than raw counts and are therefore not skewed by growing measurement volume. It stops short of return shape/pagination specifics, keeping it at a strong 4.

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 core purpose, then the sibling disambiguation, then a data-semantics caveat and the scoping defaults. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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 imply the return shape, and 'monthly percentage composition' does so adequately, while annotations cover safety. A minor gap remains around exact output fields and pagination, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter guidance ('Omit country_code for global; months defaults to 12') largely restates the schema's own descriptions ('Omit for all countries', 'default 12, max 60'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantics.

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 resource (censorship method mix) and verb/scope (shifts over time, monthly percentage composition) and enumerates the techniques measured. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_censorship_techniques by labeling that one a snapshot and this the trend, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (get_censorship_techniques) and the exact condition that selects between them (snapshot vs trend). Also gives the operator lever: 'Omit country_code for global; months defaults to 12', leaving no inference needed for scoping.

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