get_political_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses data freshness ('Updated daily') and return value structure ('probability, deadline, and confidence level'), but omits operational details like error handling, rate limits, or safety characteristics.

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?

Four sentences efficiently cover purpose, event examples, return data structure, and update frequency. Every sentence contributes distinct information without redundancy or filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return value fields (probability, deadline, confidence). For a single-parameter tool, it provides sufficient context, though explicit differentiation from conflict-risk tools would improve completeness.

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?

Although the schema has 100% coverage for the single 'category' parameter, the description adds valuable semantic context by listing example event types (elections, policy changes, economic risks) that map to the enum values (political, economic, natural_disaster), clarifying what each category encompasses.

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 retrieves 'high-impact political, economic, and natural disaster events' with specific examples (elections, policy changes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_conflict_risks', which could conceptually overlap with political events.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_conflict_risks' or 'get_maritime_traffic'. While it characterizes the data (probability estimates, daily updates), it lacks 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' criteria.

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