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 useful scope context (every watched country, sorted by risk) but says nothing about return shape, result size, or whether filters affect ordering.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (single-call, scope, sort order) carries information the agent can act on.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (risk across all watched countries, risk-ordered) adequately. It could note the min_risk effect on the heatmap, but nothing essential for 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 single min_risk parameter is fully documented with type, range, and default, so the schema carries the burden. The description does not mention min_risk at all, adding no semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected 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 names a specific resource (shutdown-risk heatmap) and scope (every watched country) with a clear verb phrase, and adds the output ordering (sorted by risk). It is distinguishable from per-country siblings like get_shutdown_risk, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces.

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 'Single-call ... across every watched country' implies the use case: prefer this over repeated per-country lookups when you want a global view. However, no alternative tool is named and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so usage is only implied rather than spelled out.

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