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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the tool is experimental and probability intervals are deliberately withheld pending validation. That tells the agent to expect incomplete output and not to treat the scores as calibrated probabilities.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, leading with the scope (1/7/30-day country scores) and immediately following with the output caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both what is returned (scores plus SHAP features per horizon) and a key output limitation (intervals withheld). It could say more about what a 'score' represents, but nothing essential for calling the tool 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 parameter (country_code) is fully documented in the schema with an ISO format and examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (country scores) with explicit horizons (1/7/30-day) and a distinctive payload detail (per-horizon SHAP top features), which sets it apart from generic getters. However, it never contrasts itself with close siblings such as get_risk_forecast or get_shutdown_risk, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. The word 'Experimental' and the withheld-intervals note hint at caution, but the description does not tell the agent when to prefer this over get_risk_forecast or get_prediction_track_record.

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