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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely valuable context: the score is experimental, derives from historical OONI plus calendar inputs, and has no demonstrated skill at onset timing, with a pointer to the skill endpoint. Return format is not described, but no output schema exists and the limitation disclosure is unusually candid.

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, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (experimental, 7-day, current-regime) is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, method, horizon, and a crucial reliability caveat, which is close to sufficient. The one gap is that it does not position itself against the dense set of sibling forecast/risk tools.

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 there is a single required country_code parameter with an example-bearing description, so the schema carries full parameter semantics. The description only implies country-level scoping; it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 verb+resource with scope: '7-day current-regime risk score' derived from 'historical OONI and calendar inputs', plus an experimental caveat. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not name the close siblings (get_shutdown_risk, get_multi_horizon_forecast), so an agent must infer the distinction from the 7-day framing alone.

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?

The description gives one implicit usage constraint ('no demonstrated skill at timing new shutdown onsets'), which steers agents away from using it for onset prediction. However, it never states when to choose this over the many sibling risk/forecast tools, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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