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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read with no side effects, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses the output composition (SHAP features, conformal intervals), but says nothing about model assumptions, latency, or data freshness, which matter for a forecast.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and horizons before the output detail. Every clause carries information, though the jargon (SHAP, conformal intervals) is left unexplained.

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 does step in to describe return contents, and the sole required parameter is covered. However it omits usage guidance, forecast reliability caveats, and freshness, leaving gaps for a forecasting tool with many sibling overlaps.

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 100% and the single parameter country_code is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description's 'for a country' merely restates that mapping without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource (censorship forecasts for a country) and scopes it precisely with the 1/7/30-day horizons plus output content (per-horizon SHAP features, 90% conformal intervals). It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like get_risk_forecast and get_prediction_track_record by the multi-horizon framing, though it never names those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to pick this over the many other forecasting/risk siblings (get_risk_forecast, get_shutdown_risk, get_prediction_track_record). The agent must infer the use case from the output description alone.

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