geo_pulse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns risk_score, conflict signals, and commodity impact, but lacks details on update frequency, authentication, or side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences, each with clear purpose. First sentence defines the tool and its outputs; second sentence provides usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use, and parameter behavior. Could further differentiate from sibling tools, but overall complete.

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?

The input schema only defines 'region' as a string with default empty. The description adds meaning: 'Pass a region name or leave empty for global overview.' This clarifies usage beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Geopolitical risk assessment by region.' It specifies outputs (risk_score, signals, commodity impact) and usage pattern (pass a region or leave empty for global). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like latam_pulse or real_estate_pulse.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when geopolitical events may affect a trade, supply chain, or commodity position.' While not comparing directly to siblings, this guidance is clear and actionable.

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