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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the source is under review, explains why no network is ranked, states that ISP rows will be null, and notes the review object's verdict is unknown with no data date. This is exactly the behavioral transparency an agent needs for a currently unusable data source.

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 a single front-loaded sentence beginning with 'Under review:' and every clause adds relevant information about the status, cause, and return behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the current return behavior and why the data is unavailable. The remaining gap is that it does not explicitly point the agent to a usable alternative, but the core calling context is covered.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents country_code. The description does not add any syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the domain (ISP block rates and composite scores) and explicitly states the current under-review behavior, but it never says plainly 'retrieves the ISP risk index for a country' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_isp_categories. An agent can infer the tool's subject, but the purpose is framed mainly as a status caveat rather than a clear action.

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?

It signals that the tool is under review and returns null ISP rows, which implicitly warns against relying on it, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative sibling tool to call instead. The agent is left to infer whether to skip this tool entirely or still call it for the review object.

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