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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the real burden and delivers: it defines the 'active' lifecycle rule (WHO update within 90 days), states that outbreaks are never retired by feed disappearance, and discloses the 14-day-vs-prior-14-day comparison window. That is substantive behavioral context an agent could not derive from the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the source and the core metric front-loaded before the lifecycle and coverage caveats. The parenthetical nesting makes it dense to parse, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the annotations already cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps: data provenance, the attention metric's definition, status semantics, and the non-exhaustiveness caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and correctly interpret this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by defining what 'active' actually means in data terms (WHO update within 90 days) rather than just restating the enum. The 'quiet' and 'all' values and the limit parameter are still left to the schema, keeping it short of a 5.

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 (WHO Disease Outbreak News events) and precisely what is attached to each record (Geotone's measured news attention, 14-day vs prior-14-day GDELT counts). It is unmistakably distinct from the other tools in this family, but it never names or contrasts a sibling, which is what separates a 5 from a 4.

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 is only implied: the description explains what the default filter returns and warns that absence is not evidence of absence, which helps interpretation. It never says when to reach for this tool versus get_briefing, get_trending, or get_wire, and gives no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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