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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context about the data itself: it returns data freshness, a 30-day measurement window, a technique mix, and domains confirmed across at least three networks. This goes beyond annotations to disclose scope and a reliability threshold, though it does not cover output structure or potential limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's scope and contents, and closes with a clear selection recommendation. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 convey the return shape, and it does so by listing the four main profile components. It is nearly complete for an agent to decide and call correctly, but it could be more explicit about the exact response fields or any pagination limits.

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 country_code parameter is fully documented in the schema with its ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (measured-censorship profile for a country) and enumerates the exact components returned: data freshness, 30-day volume, technique mix, and nationally blocked domains. It explicitly positions itself as the 'Best single call for a country overview,' which distinguishes it from narrower siblings such as get_censorship_techniques or get_national_blocklist.

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 phrase 'Best single call for a country overview' gives a clear context for when to use this tool over granular alternatives. It does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when not to use it, but the recommendation is unambiguous enough for selection.

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