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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: built on confirmed-national layer (>=3 independent networks), counts are a floor not a census, no uniquely-blocked lists because absence is unconfirmed, and China is under-counted due to GFW anomaly. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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-loads the core purpose, then layers in examples, honesty caveats, and limitations. Every sentence adds value, though its length is near the upper bound for a two-parameter tool; it remains well-structured and readable.

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 complex comparison tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return contents (blocked counts, shared blocklist, per-category breakdown) and important limitations. An agent has everything needed to understand the output and call the tool correctly.

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 adds no parameter-specific syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents both ISO country code parameters.

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 action (head-to-head comparison) and resource (country censorship) with explicit outputs: blocked domain counts, shared blocklist, per-category side-by-side. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_national_blocklist and get_co_blocking as related tools and providing an example (IR vs RU).

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 says 'Use for how does country X's censorship differ from Y's?' and clarifies the confirmed-national layer basis. It also notes what the tool deliberately does not provide ('uniquely blocked' lists) and that counts agree with get_national_blocklist + get_co_blocking, giving clear routing context.

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