cyber_outage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior such as whether results are real-time or historical, what specific data is returned (e.g., outage severity, time range), or any side effects. The description is too vague to inform an agent about the tool's internal workings.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on return format or expected behavior, but for a straightforward detection tool, it meets basic needs.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter 'country' with a clear description ('2-letter ISO country code'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: detect internet outages in a country using IODA. It has a specific verb (Detect), resource (internet outages), and scope (in a country), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cyber_connectivity or cyber_censorship.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cyber_connectivity for general connectivity data). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when an agent should prefer this tool.

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