Conflict events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world behavior are covered. The description adds genuine context — dataset provenance (ACLED via HDX) and annual granularity, which is non-obvious given year_from/year_to — but says nothing about coverage gaps, lag, or update cadence.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the source in parentheses; no filler. The pairing sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place as routing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the schema fully documents all four parameters. Purpose, source, granularity, and a sibling-pairing cue are present; only the explicit alternative conditions are missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, including locale semantics and year-range defaults, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond implying an annual time range; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb/resource pair — annual conflict event counts and fatalities scoped to a country — and names the data source (ACLED via HDX). It does not explicitly contrast itself with neighbors like situation_reports or latest_statistics, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives a pairing hint (use alongside refugee_population/trend_analysis to relate violence and displacement), which implies a workflow context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or differentiation from the other data-retrieval siblings, so guidance remains implied.

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