Egypt Research Commons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds only 'documented timeline', not explaining behavioral traits like data sources or limits. With annotations, the bar is lower, but the description contributes minimal transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but inadequate. It lacks any structure (e.g., separate sections) and does not earn its place due to insufficient information.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not provided here), the description does not mention return format or quality expectations. For a simple tool with 2 parameters, the description should at least specify what a timeline consists of or how it is documented.

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%, and the description does not explain what the 'query' or 'limit' parameters mean beyond their names and types. The description fails to add meaning over the schema.

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 it builds a documented timeline for a topic, issue, or entity, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools (e.g., egypt_list_events, egypt_trace_claim).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., egypt_list_events for event sequences). The description does not mention appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., scope, side effects, or rate limits), providing no extra value beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise (single sentence) but under-specified. Fails to include necessary parameter or usage details, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits important context about what the aggregation/comparison returns, how to structure queries, or any operational constraints. Incomplete for a non-trivial tool.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the 'query' parameter's purpose or format, nor the 'limit' parameter's effect, leaving agents to guess.

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 Arabic description states it aggregates similar claims and compares positions/evidence, clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like egypt_compare_sources by focusing on claims.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like egypt_trace_claim or egypt_compare_sources. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context about preserving unit/methodology differences, which is valuable beyond metadata.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wordiness, every word earns its place.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested objects, many optional fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It leaves agents without details on how to structure queries or interpret results.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters. The tool has a complex nested array parameter with many options, but the description offers no assistance.

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: combining two to four live series for comparison while preserving unit/methodology differences. It distinguishes from egypt_get_live_data but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like egypt_compare_sources.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for comparing multiple live datasets, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not add behavioral details beyond stating the purpose, but the annotations adequately convey safety.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and without unnecessary words, though it could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 complexity as a comparison tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description lacks details about the meaning of 'coverage', the expected output, or use cases. It feels incomplete.

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 description implies the 'query' parameter is the search term, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more parameter context.

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: comparing coverage of different source types for the same query. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like egypt_compare_claims, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as egypt_compare_claims or egypt_get_coverage. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., whether it returns a file, streaming, or pagination), but does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence in Arabic, efficiently stating the core purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, though non-English text may reduce readability for some agents.

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 has three parameters and an output schema, the minimal description lacks important context such as output format details, limit behavior, or how the exported data is delivered. The presence of an output schema does not fully compensate for the lack of usage context.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters or their meaning. For a tool with three parameters (query, limit, format), the description entirely fails to explain how to use them, severely limiting usability.

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 function: exporting search results in specified formats (CSV, JSONL, BibTeX, RIS). The verb 'export' and resource 'search results' are specific, and the supported formats are listed, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like egypt_search or egypt_find_entities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain prerequisites, expected use cases, or situations where another tool (e.g., egypt_search) might be more appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the output (entities with counts and offset numbering), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential behaviors like null results or error conditions.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which may document return structure), the description omits crucial context for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. It fails to explain the role of 'document_id' for filtering or how 'limit' interacts with pagination. The description is insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'offset' (via 'ترقيم عبر offset'), but does not explain 'limit' or 'document_id' parameters. Two of three parameters are left completely undocumented, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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 displays extracted entities and their occurrence counts in documents, with offset-based pagination. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like egypt_search or egypt_hybrid_search.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering behaviors, or when not to use it. The purpose is implied but no explicit usage context is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description does not contradict these, but adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it shows coverage.

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?

A single concise sentence conveys the purpose with no waste. Could benefit from brief structure but is efficient.

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 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately states the tool's purpose but could elaborate on the scope of 'archive coverage' or usage contexts.

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?

No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the output dimensions (topic, reliability, document count), which is valuable for understanding what the tool returns.

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 specifically states the tool displays archive coverage by topic, source reliability, and document count, which clearly identifies its function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like egypt_get_source_profile or egypt_search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The description is purely declarative without usage context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context like source diversity measurement and pagination, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentence covering key elements: daily brief, source diversity, and offset. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could be slightly more structured.

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 has 3 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core function and pagination, though it lacks explicit parameter guidance. The output schema covers return values.

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 mentions offset pagination and source diversity, partially explaining parameters. However, it does not describe the date format or limit/offset details, leaving gaps.

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 returns materials for a specific day with source diversity measurement and offset pagination, distinguishing it from siblings like egypt_get_document (single document) and egypt_search (search).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description implies it is for daily briefs but does not explicitly state when it is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of 'with citation data' adds value beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction, and the description provides useful context about the response content.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and existing annotations and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the resource and the type of data returned. No critical gaps are present.

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 only parameter, document_id, is self-explanatory and the schema provides its type and constraints. However, the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, and schema description coverage is 0%. A brief mention in the description would help but is not critical given the parameter's simplicity.

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 retrieves a single document record with citation data. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'document record with citations' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like egypt_get_coverage or egypt_get_live_data.

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 retrieving a document with citations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, more explicit guidance would improve this dimension.

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

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

Annotations already declare safe, idempotent, read-only behavior. The description adds context about data source type (REST/OData) and returned fields, but does not fully disclose aspects like pagination, error handling, or required 'source' parameter behavior.

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 sentence, reasonably concise. However, it lacks structure: field names are listed without explanation of their role or hierarchy, and the sentence is not optimized for quick AI comprehension.

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 has 10 parameters, 3 enums, and a low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to query, filter by country/source, or handle multiple periods. The presence of an output schema mitigates some burden, but the description still omits core operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only lists abstract result fields (indicator value, period). It does not explain any of the 10 parameters, their meaning, or how they map to the query. For example, 'source', 'country', 'indicator' are undefined.

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 retrieves live data from REST/OData and lists returned fields (indicator value, period, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'egypt_get_coverage' or 'egypt_list_live_datasets', but could be more explicit about uniqueness.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when-not, or which sibling tools to consider instead.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the implied read nature. Given the annotations, the description is adequate but does not contribute extra transparency.

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 sentence in Arabic, which is concise and to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb and key details. It could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It lists the main return fields but does not describe the output format or provide usage context. The agent has enough to understand the tool's basic purpose but may lack guidance on when to use it.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'source_slug' has no description. The description does not explicitly mention the parameter or explain how to use it. However, the description implies the tool returns information about a source identified by the slug. This partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation, but a clearer link between input and output would improve the score.

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 specifies the verb 'display' and lists the resources (source type, ownership, collection validity, number of documents). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like egypt_list_sources (which lists sources) and egypt_get_document (which retrieves a specific document). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when-not to use it or mention any alternative tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description.

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

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

Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent operation. The description adds that the tool provides rank explanation ('تفسير الترتيب'), which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key concepts. However, the language (Arabic) may reduce accessibility for some agents.

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 5 parameters (1 required), presence of output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is adequate but lacks details on how the hybrid search works or what the rank explanation looks like. It covers the basics but leaves gaps.

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 mentions 'type and period filters' corresponding to source_types, date_from, date_to, but does not describe query or limit. Only partial value added.

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 it is a hybrid search combining textual and semantic matching with rank explanation and type/period filters, which distinguishes it from the simpler 'egypt_search' sibling. However, it is written in Arabic, which might reduce clarity for some agents.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'egypt_search'. The description implies use for hybrid search but doesn't state exclusions or contexts.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool links events to original documents and uses offset for pagination, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence in Arabic that is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could add more detail without becoming overly verbose.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema that is not detailed in the input, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of document_id or the output structure, and the pagination mechanism is only hinted at.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description must compensate but only indirectly mentions offset via 'numbering via offset'. It does not explain the limit or document_id parameter, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 that the tool displays historical events and links each event to its original documents with numbering via offset. It uses a specific verb 'display' and resource 'historical events with documents', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like egypt_list_stories or egypt_build_timeline.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for related tasks, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe reading. The description adds value by noting no token is required, but beyond that, it does not disclose further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering). With good annotation coverage, the description contributes some but not extensive context.

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 sentence in Arabic, roughly 10 words, that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary, with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 input parameters, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains the resource (public live datasets), key attributes (protocol, coverage, license), and access requirement (no token). No additional behavioral details are needed for a simple listing tool.

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 and 100% schema description coverage (the schema itself is empty). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It implicitly clarifies that no input is needed.

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 displays a catalog of public live datasets (عرض كتالوج البيانات الحية العامة) and specifies they work without token, including protocol, coverage, and license. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like egypt_get_live_data (single dataset) or egypt_list_sources (different resource).

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 browsing available live datasets, and the context of sibling tools makes it clear when to use this vs. others (e.g., egypt_get_live_data for a specific dataset). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or mention of alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool shows 'archiving status' and uses 'offset' for pagination, but does not disclose rate limits or authentication needs.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous information. However, it is in Arabic, which may limit accessibility for some agents.

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 complexity of 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain filtering options, the meaning of 'archiving status', or the return structure (though output schema exists, it is not visible here).

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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% coverage. The description only mentions 'offset', leaving limit, active_only, and source_type unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter roles.

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 displays a catalog of sources and archiving status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like egypt_get_source_profile. However, it could be more specific about what 'catalog' includes and the exact output.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., egypt_get_source_profile, egypt_list_events). The description lacks context on prerequisites, filtering, or search use cases.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the tool as safe and read-only. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond mentioning pagination via offset, which is already in the schema. It fails to disclose traits like result format or any side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, its lack of clarity undermines its value; it is not effectively front-loaded and leaves ambiguity, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description should clarify what a 'story' is and what 'close together' means. The current text is incomplete and does not provide sufficient context for correct invocation. The output schema may define return values, but the input description still leaves gaps.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'ترقيم عبر offset' (numbering via offset), but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or clarify how these parameters affect results. The description adds marginal meaning beyond the schema's type/min/max constraints.

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 'عرض القصص المتقاربة مع عدد الوثائق وتنوع المصادر وترقيم عبر offset' translates to 'Display stories that are close together with the number of documents and diversity of sources and numbering via offset.' It vaguely indicates listing stories but lacks specificity; the phrase 'close together' is ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like egypt_list_events or egypt_search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for proper selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context about what the tool specifically tests (accessibility and health categorization), going beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose without extraneous 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 has no parameters, rich annotations, and a known output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as no additional meaning is required.

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: testing current accessibility of live data sources and classifying them as healthy, limited, or stopped. It uses a specific verb ('اختبار' - test) and resource ('مصادر البيانات الحية' - live data sources), and this function is distinct from sibling tools like egypt_get_live_data or egypt_list_live_datasets.

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 the tool is for health checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as egypt_get_live_data or egypt_list_live_datasets. There is no guidance on exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and reliability. The description adds that it aggregates multiple research components (timeline, entities, claims, sources), implying a potentially large response. However, it does not disclose performance characteristics, rate limits, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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, concise sentence in Arabic that covers the key output aspects. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, but being in non-English might reduce readability for some agents. Structure could be improved with bullet points for clarity.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient to guide proper usage. It provides a high-level view of outputs but neglects input constraints (e.g., date range format, source types). The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the lack of parameter context severely limits completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the burden falls entirely on the tool description to explain parameters, but it fails to do so. The description does not mention query, limit, date_to, date_from, or source_types, leaving the AI agent without guidance on how to construct valid inputs.

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 it is a documented research package that combines hybrid search, results, timeline, entities, claims, and source diversity. This specifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on single aspects like egypt_hybrid_search or egypt_build_timeline. However, it could be more precise about the exact verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'generate') rather than just 'combines'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it. An explicit note about preferring this for an aggregated view versus using specialized tools for specific needs is lacking.

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

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

The description adds that the save is local and mentions writing is disabled at the public MCP point, which may confuse the agent. It does not clarify behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, nor does it fully explain the implications of the idempotent hint.

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 short but the second sentence about writing being disabled adds unnecessary confusion. However, it is not overly verbose.

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 low schema coverage and minimal parameter explanation, the description is incomplete. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter context and unclear behavioral notes.

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 has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain either parameter (name, query) beyond their names. This is a critical gap for a two-parameter required tool.

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 saves a local research query for later resumption, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which cover other research operations.

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 saving queries to resume later but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds pagination and filter context but no additional behavioral traits like authentication needs, data freshness, or performance characteristics.

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?

Single sentence, concise but lacks depth. Does not waste words, but could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Complexity is moderate with 6 parameters and output schema exists. Description does not mention return value or output structure, leaving the agent guessing about what the search returns. Scope of 'Egyptian documents' is broad.

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 coverage is 0%. The description mentions source types, date filters, and offset, covering 4 of 6 parameters implicitly, but omits query and limit. Required parameter query is not elaborated.

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 it performs a unified search in Egyptian documents with source and date filters and pagination via offset. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like egypt_hybrid_search or egypt_find_entities.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or context-dependent selection criteria.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the action of tracing but does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling or limits, so it adds limited extra transparency.

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 sentence, very concise. It directly states the purpose without extra words. However, it omits parameter guidance, which could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter tool and presence of an output schema, the description adequately states the core purpose. However, it lacks explanation of the parameter and usage context, making it somewhat incomplete for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'claim_id' parameter (e.g., expected value range or source). The description mentions 'a single claim' but fails to add meaningful semantics to the parameter.

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 specifies the action ('trace') and the object ('a single claim to evidence and sources'), differentiating it from sibling tools like 'egypt_compare_claims' which focus on comparison. The verb and resource are specific.

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 when to use (when tracing a claim), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. With many sibling tools, more differentiation would help.

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