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 the composite score's constituent factors, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about ranking direction (higher = worse?), result ordering, or coverage limits of the data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the subject (ISPs ranked by score) leads and the supporting detail follows compactly.

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, no-output-schema query tool, the description conveys what is produced and how it is ordered. Minor gaps remain around ranking direction and the per-ISP fields returned, but the conceptual picture is sufficient to invoke it.

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 with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents country_code with its ISO format and examples. The description adds no syntax, scoping, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 resource (ISPs in a country) and the returned artifact (a risk index ranked by a composite censorship score), and decomposes the composite into aggressiveness, category breadth, and blocking methods. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_isp_categories or get_censorship_index, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_isp_categories or get_country_profile, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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