sentinel_stealth_blackouts

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

The description reveals that the tool returns candidate items with links to external resources (IODA, OONI Explorer, country card), which is helpful. No annotations exist to cover safety or idempotence, so the description carries the burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 at two sentences. The first sentence immediately defines the tool's purpose and output, and the second sentence adds an important usage note about human review. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture: it states no input is needed, specifies the output candidates and their characteristics, and notes external links and a human-review recommendation. It lacks explicit definition of the output format (e.g., fields like country, date, links), but an agent can infer the structure from 'country-days' and 'links to IODA, OONI Explorer and the country card'.

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 tool has zero parameters, resulting in 100% schema coverage by default. The description adds value by explaining the output: it returns country-days with specific criteria and links to external sources. Without the description, the empty schema provides no context. The description compensates well, though it could be more structured about the output fields.

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 identifies the tool as returning 'stealth blackout candidates' – country-days with specific anomalous characteristics. It specifies the data sources (BGP/RIB stable but large ping/merit deviations) and mentions external links. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get', which slightly reduces clarity compared to a full imperative statement.

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 implies usage for detecting stealth blackout candidates and includes a post-retrieval instruction about human review for 'strong_candidate' labels. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., other sentinel_* or anomaly_* tools), nor does it state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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