peerglass_country_health

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the methodology (BGP withdrawal analysis, neutral vs ISP resolver comparison) and data sources (OONI, Starlink/Viasat/OneWeb) without contradicting the safety annotations. It could enhance further by mentioning data freshness or caching behavior.

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 uses efficient bullet points for the four weighted components and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence conveys distinct information (methodology, weighting, audience, parameters), with no redundant filler despite the rich detail provided.

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 complexity (composite aggregation of four distinct measurement types) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the scoring methodology, target audience, and return value structure without needing to replicate the full output schema definition.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the input properties, the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section: country_code includes the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard and concrete examples ('UA', 'SY', 'MM'), while response_format specifies the enum values and default behavior ('markdown' default or 'json').

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 explicitly defines the tool as providing a 'Composite country internet health score' with specific component weightings (40/30/20/10). It clearly identifies target users (journalists, NGO directors, crisis responders) and distinguishes this dashboard view from individual probe tools by listing the four distinct data sources it aggregates.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool (for a single 0-100 score and plain-language summary) and implies its scope through the composite methodology. However, it does not explicitly direct users to sibling tools like peerglass_shutdown_detect or peerglass_dns_censorship for component-level detail versus this aggregate view.

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