No it's not the tooling, unless by tooling you mean mypy. The issue is that you can write code with type errors that mypy doesn't catch. In what I usually think of as static typing, that would be impossible: type errors are simply not allowed, even if that means the compiler rejects some otherwise-valid code.

I think mypy has to let some potential errors through because otherwise it would spew 1000's of spurious error messages on perfectly good, unannotated legacy code. Something similar happens with the Erlang dialyzer. The same thing applies to tools like Coverity, that aim to find potential bugs in legacy C code.

You could instead imagine a version of mypy that makes no concessions at all to legacy code, and insists that your code be 100% free of type errors, even if that means that some older constructs and styles no longer work. Would that be a good thing? Probably not: we have Haskell for that. Mypy's leaking errors is probably a practical necessity in retrospect. But, I wasn't expecting the leakage, so it surprised and disappointed me when I encountered it. I had thought I was getting something more like Haskell. Mypy still has attractions, but it's less great than I had hoped.