Free evidence-health tool. Check official-source fingerprints, freshness gaps, known conflicts, and review state globally or for one authority before relying on a decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| authority | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It uses the verb 'Check' which conventionally implies a read operation, but never explicitly says read-only, nor does it disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when the tool is invoked. The phrase 'Free evidence-health tool' adds no behavioral clarity.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. The leading 'Free evidence-health tool' phrase is somewhat vague and not strictly necessary, but it does not waste significant space.
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?
With no output schema, the description names several return dimensions (fingerprints, freshness gaps, conflicts, review state) which is helpful, but it lacks specifics on return format, authority value formats, and potential errors. For a one-optional-parameter tool this is adequate but not complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by mapping the single `authority` parameter to 'globally or for one authority', clearly indicating that a null/empty value means global and a value means a specific authority. It stops short of explaining valid authority identifiers or how to obtain them.
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 names a concrete resource (official-source fingerprints, freshness gaps, known conflicts, review state) with a clear verb ('Check') and scope ('globally or for one authority'). It is distinct from sibling tools like compare_licensing_requirements or list_supported_authorities because it addresses source health status rather than comparative requirements or supported authorities.
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?
'Before relying on a decision' gives a clear use context, and 'globally or for one authority' defines the applicable scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: discovery, metadata, evidence health, single-authority preflight, and cross-authority comparison. There is minimal overlap between paid decision tools and free supporting tools.
Names are readable and domain-relevant, but they mix verb-led names like compare_licensing_requirements and list_supported_authorities with noun-led names like licensing_source_status and taxi_phv_info. There is also minor inconsistency between 'licence' and 'licensing'.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a focused regulatory decision layer. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full decision workflow: discovery, service metadata, evidence health checks, single-authority preflight, and cross-authority comparison. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations are apparent for the stated purpose.