conflict_fatalities

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (total fatalities, breakdown by event type, deadliest events) but omits details like data source, update frequency, read-only nature, or limitations. No contradiction with annotations exists, but transparency is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., specifying return type). Structure is clean.

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 no output schema, the description should more fully explain the return format. It mentions total fatalities, breakdown by event type, and deadliest events but doesn't clarify whether the output is a list, object, or how data is structured. For a tool with three parameters, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (country required, year, limit). The tool description adds information about output but not about parameters themselves. Thus, it does not augment schema meaning, earning baseline 3.

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 provides conflict fatality statistics with specific outputs: total fatalities, breakdown by event type, and deadliest events. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like conflict_events (events), conflict_actors (actors), and conflict_hotspots (hotspots) by focusing on fatalities.

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 implicitly suggests usage for fatality statistics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., conflict_events). It lacks when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references, which would help an AI agent choose correctly among many conflict-related siblings.

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