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 genuinely useful non-annotation context: the score is 'experimental', within-country onset timing is 'unproven', and the agent should read the info endpoint and response caveats before trusting results.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded followed by the reliability caveat; nothing is wasted. Slightly terse, but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the caveat caveat-routing and reliability warning adequately. It could say more about return shape or comparison to sibling shutdown-risk tools, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% and the single ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or semantics 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 verb and resource ('Get ... country shutdown-risk score') scoped to a country, which separates it from the many get_* siblings at a glance. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_shutdown_risk_accountability or get_shutdown_risk_leaderboard, so it stops 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?

Usage context is implied (fetch a country's shutdown-risk score) and it points the agent at the /v1/shutdown-risk/info endpoint for caveats. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the accountability or leaderboard variants, so this is minimum viable.

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