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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=true/openWorldHint=false annotations with substantive honesty caveats: block_rate is over MEASURED domains, an absent category is UNMEASURED rather than allowed, and ASN coverage is sparse and dominated by CensoredPlanet DNS so most networks read 'blanket'. This is exactly the kind of context that prevents an agent from misinterpreting results.

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 parameter modes, then caveats – a sensible order. The two inline examples (KZ AS207446, RU AS47541) are illustrative but make the description dense; slightly more than strictly needed, though each sentence earns most of its place.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the outputs (per-category block rates plus a blanket/selective/permissive/mixed label, or ranked networks) and flags measurement limitations. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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 coverage is already 100% (both params documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by defining what each parameter combination yields (single-network profile vs ranked country list) and clarifying asn accepts '207446' or 'AS207446'. Lacks enum or syntax detail beyond that.

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+scope: which content categories an ASN blocks vs leaves alone, and frames the analytical goal (separating targeted political censorship from blanket filtering). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_isp_risk_index, get_category_leaders, and get_censorship_by_category.

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?

Gives explicit usage modes: 'Pass country=XX&asn=NNNN for one network's per-category block rates... pass country=XX for the country's networks ranked.' This tells the agent exactly how to invoke it for each intent. It does not name a sibling alternative to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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