get_election_risk

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

The description mentions combining ML forecast with historical patterns, giving some insight into the tool's behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or the exact nature of the briefing output. For a tool with no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and an example question. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and provides an illustrative example. Lacking details on return format, but still adequate.

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 already provides full description for the sole parameter (country_code). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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: to get a censorship risk briefing for upcoming elections in a country. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('censorship risk briefing'), and uniquely distinguishes from siblings by focusing on elections.

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 example question 'What is the shutdown risk during Iran's election?' effectively demonstrates when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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