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 earns credit for disclosing the return shape (no output schema exists) and for the interpretive caveat that these are aggregate country measurement signals rather than per-domain block verdicts. No permissions, rate limits, or freshness caveats beyond lastUpdated are noted.

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-loaded with the resource identity, then the field inventory, then the scoping caveat. The field list is dense but each item maps to a real returned value; no filler sentences.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations gap, the description does the necessary work: it enumerates the returned fields and frames how to interpret them. The remaining hole is sibling differentiation from get_country_profile/get_country_compare, which the agent cannot resolve from this text.

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?

Only one parameter, and its schema description is fully covered (100%) including ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format with IR/CN/RU examples. The prose adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 ('Country record from Voidly's OONI-based censorship index') and enumerates the returned signals: risk level/score, measurement count, affectedServices, active incidents, lastUpdated. It scopes itself against domain-level tools with 'not per-domain block verdicts', but never distinguishes itself from very close siblings like get_country_profile or get_country_compare.

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?

There is an implicit negative scoping hint ('not per-domain block verdicts') that tells the agent when NOT to use it, but no positive when-to-use guidance and no named alternative sibling is offered. The agent must infer the selection rules from the sibling list alone.

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