NarcoScope — official drug-market evidence explorer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that the analyses are 'current' and 'deterministic' and listing what metadata is included. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but that is not essential for a read-only list.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and includes the key resource and relevant attributes without any unnecessary words. It is highly concise and well-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?

The description explains what is returned and lists key data elements, but it fails to explain the 'limit' parameter and lacks usage guidance. Since there is no output schema, the agent does not know the response structure or how the limit affects the result set.

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 sole parameter 'limit' has no schema description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have clarified what 'limit' controls (e.g., number of analyses or page size). The omission leaves the parameter ambiguous.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'current deterministic analyses' with enumerated attributes (citations, correction metadata, publication gates, evidence limits). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_story or get_overview.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for listing deterministic analyses but does not state exclusions or name alternative tools for different purposes.

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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'bounded' qualifier and the data categories, which gives some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination, or any limitations beyond 'bounded'. Given the annotations cover the main safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action verb 'Return' and immediately clarifies scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless, read-only tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and data coverage. It may not clarify what 'bounded' means exactly (e.g., time window, record limit), but overall it provides enough context for the agent to know when to use it and what to expect at a high level.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds meaningful context about what the overview contains, which helps the agent understand the expected output even without parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not miss any necessary parameter documentation.

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 'bounded headline aggregates' and enumerates specific data domains (prices, seizures, overdose mortality, wastewater, public designations). This distinctively positions it against sibling tools like get_newsroom or get_story, which focus on other content types.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need a quick, high-level overview of official data across the listed categories. The description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is well implied. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose itself guides appropriate usage.

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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about the data source ('official-only', 'shared with Intelligence Commons') and content, but does not disclose potential limitations such as access requirements, latency, or return format. Since annotations cover the main risk, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. It conveys essential meaning without redundancy or wasted 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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the meaning of 'disclosure and causal boundaries', but the core purpose is clear and sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and no extra information 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 action ('Return') and the specific resource ('official-only China aggregate shared with the Intelligence Commons'), including content details ('disclosure and causal boundaries'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_newsroom or get_story.

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 does not provide any context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'official-only' hints at a special scope but does not offer actionable guidance for 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 and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about artifact variants and preferred workflow, but does not disclose behavior like error handling, pagination, or what each artifact contains beyond naming them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. No filler or redundant content.

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 read-only tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core options and adds a usage preference. It lacks details on response structure or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is reasonably 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by enumerating the artifact enum values (metadata, machine brief, cited dossier) matching the schema. However, it does not explain the 'slug' parameter's meaning beyond what the pattern in the schema suggests, and no additional semantics for the artifact parameter are provided beyond names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('one story') with three distinct output formats (metadata, machine brief, dossier). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_newsroom or get_overview, which operate at different levels.

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 gives explicit in-tool guidance: 'Use the machine brief first for agent workflows.' It implies this tool is for single-story retrieval, differentiating from siblings, though it doesn't formally state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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 this as a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by enumerating the categories of capabilities that will be listed, giving the agent a concrete expectation of the tool's output scope. It does not introduce any contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with the verb 'List' first. It packs the full scope of the tool into a compact list without redundant words or information. Every element 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent exactly what categories are covered, which is the only critical information needed to decide whether to invoke it. No important behavioral or scoping details are missing.

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 the input schema is an empty object. Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter details (which are unnecessary here) and correctly implies that no input 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 explicitly uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource: the tool enumerates key capability categories (evidence explorer, newsroom, API, feeds, MCP tools, audiences, safety boundaries). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_newsroom or get_story, which fetch individual resources.

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 a clear use case: call this tool to discover available capabilities before using specific getter tools. It lists exactly what the agent will receive, giving strong contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for narrower tasks, so it stops short of a 5.

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