Dietary Exposure MCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools share similar patterns (e.g., multiple export_*_review_dossier, *_signoff_packet) and could be confused without careful reading of descriptions. However, distinct resource types (contaminant, metals, adapter, trade risk) and lifecycle stages (bundle, signoff, dossier) help separate most purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a strict dietary_<verb>_<noun> pattern with consistent snake_case. Verb choices (export, assess, parse, build, lookup) are predictable and consistently applied across the toolset.
Tool Count2/5
With 49 tools, the server is far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. Many tools are variants of exporting or lookup operations that could be consolidated into fewer, parameterized tools.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers a broad dietary exposure workflow: raw data parsing, residue profiles, intake scenarios, probabilistic summaries, trade risk, and multiple export formats. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit update/delete for profiles) but core lifecycle coverage is strong.
Average 3/5 across 49 of 49 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 21, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Export'. It does not explain what happens during export, what the output looks like, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it under-specifies the tool's purpose and behavior. Under-specification is not effective conciseness; useful details are missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a complex nested schema, an output schema, and numerous sibling tools, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, input requirements, output characteristics, or when it should be chosen over alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the single 'request' parameter or its nested structure. The large, complex request schema is left entirely unexplained, so the agent receives no help constructing valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Export') and names a resource, but 'ToxClaw-oriented dietary evidence bundle' is unexplained jargon and does not distinguish this tool from the many other export bundle siblings. It is clear at a surface level but vague about what the bundle actually contains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling export tools. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 covered. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as how 'governed' applies, what 'allowed-use posture' means, or any error conditions like invalid jurisdiction or missing dataset. No additional value is provided 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. The jargon-heavy phrase 'governed dietary consumption-dataset support and allowed-use posture' obscures rather than clarifies the tool's purpose. It is not merely concise; it is incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested request object with required jurisdiction and optional datasetId/contaminantFamily, plus an output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'support' and 'allowed-use posture' refer to. It does not explain the input fields or provide sufficient context for the agent to decide when to use this tool. The output schema covers return structure, but the description still fails to give meaningful operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description makes no mention of the request parameters (jurisdiction, datasetId, contaminantFamily). With schema coverage at 0%, the description was expected to explain what each parameter means, but it offers no such guidance. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of how to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states that the tool returns 'governed dietary consumption-dataset support and allowed-use posture,' which indicates a lookup function for consumption dataset support. However, the phrasing is vague and does not clearly distinguish this from other lookup tools like dietary_lookup_method_support or dietary_lookup_reporting_profiles. The verb 'Return' is generic, and 'posture' is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling lookup tools. There is no context about when a consumption dataset support lookup is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, annotations already establish safety. The description adds 'governed' and 'cohort-bootstrap', providing some methodological context but not clarifying outputs, side effects, or limitations. It does not contradict annotations, and the added context is minimal but non-zero.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and structurally front-loaded, but it is concise at the expense of clarity. It uses jargon ('governed cohort-bootstrap review support') that likely obfuscates rather than clarifies. Conciseness is valued, but this sentence does not earn its place due to low informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a complex schema with nested objects and an output schema, the description remains incomplete. It does not explain what the tool produces, how it relates to the survey dataset and residue profile, or how it compares to sibling tools like dietary_summarize_survey_distribution. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the dietary workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'request' parameter. The description does not explain what fields the request should contain or how the nested structures (dataset, residue_profile) are used. The only hint is 'raw survey distributions', which loosely maps to 'dataset' but leaves the residue_profile and numeric parameters (randomSeed, iterationCount) unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute governed cohort-bootstrap review support over raw survey distributions' uses the vague verb 'execute' and an abstract object 'review support'. It does not clearly state that it builds a probabilistic intake summary, and it fails to distinguish from siblings like dietary_build_bounded_intake_summary or dietary_summarize_survey_distribution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selecting this over sibling tools such as dietary_summarize_survey_distribution or dietary_build_bounded_intake_summary. The reference to 'cohort-bootstrap' implies a statistical context but not actionable usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context; 'without implying a native exposure engine' hints at a limitation but does not describe output characteristics, data scope, or any operational constraints beyond what the 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is vague and clunky. The phrase 'without implying a native exposure engine' is an unclear disclaimer that does not earn its place, and the sentence fails to communicate a clear, concise purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large set of sibling lookup tools and the existence of an output schema, the description should clarify what 'metals occurrence' means in this context, what 'monitoring support' includes, and how this tool differs from related ones like dietary_lookup_occurrence_evidence. None of that context is provided, making the description incomplete for effective selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameter names or meanings. The required contaminantFamily enum and optional authority/jurisdiction fields are left entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their semantics from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Return' and identifies a resource ('governed metals occurrence and monitoring support'), but the resource is vague and the negative clause 'without implying a native exposure engine' does not clarify what the tool actually does. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling lookup tools like dietary_lookup_occurrence_evidence or dietary_lookup_metals_review_focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The disclaimer about not implying a native exposure engine is more confusing than actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral detail about validation rules, normalization steps, or error handling. 'Into a governed dataset' is ambiguous about persistence, but not a direct contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with no filler, and it is front-loaded. However, it is not appropriately sized for a tool with a complex nested schema—it omits essential input details and reads as an under-specified summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description provides only a high-level purpose. The tool has a large nested schema and an output schema, yet no explanation of inputs, validation behavior, or normalization specifics. Inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly without further information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'raw individual survey consumption records' but does not explain the required top-level parameters (datasetId, regionId, populationGroup) or the structure of rawRecords. It offers minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs 'Parse, validate, and normalize' and names the resource 'raw individual survey consumption records' with an outcome 'governed dataset.' It clearly states what the tool does and is distinct from export/lookup siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling check/import tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as dietary_check_adapter_import or import checkers. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over other data-processing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints, such as what 'staged' implies, whether validation is performed, or how readiness is determined. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes minimal value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded, with no filler. However, it uses domain jargon ('staged', 'governed export-readiness profile') without elaboration, which slightly reduces clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a large input schema and many sibling tools, the description is too thin to guide selection or invocation. It doesn't explain the role of the preview/dossier, what readiness outcomes look like, or how this differs from other assess/export tools. Even with an output schema, the description is incomplete for a complex assessment tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the 'request' parameter or its required sub-fields (dossier, preview, targetProfile). Since the schema is rich but the description fails to compensate, this dimension is severely under-served.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'Assess' as a specific verb and names the resource: 'a staged interoperability preview' against a 'governed export-readiness profile'. This distinguishes it from sibling export tools. However, similar assess tools like 'dietary_assess_review_dossier_readiness' exist, creating some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'dietary_export_interoperability_preview' or 'dietary_assess_review_dossier_readiness'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the core safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond saying 'machine-readable', which is also evident from the output schema. It doesn't describe what the bundle contains, how it is returned, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it efficient in structure. However, it is under-specified, bordering on vague, which reduces its overall effectiveness despite the concise format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complex schema, extensive $defs, and output schema, the one-line description is wholly inadequate. It doesn't explain the bundle's purpose, prerequisites, relationship to other interoperability tools, or what a 'remediation bundle' entails. The agent is left with insufficient context to correctly select and invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'request' with nested required fields (dossier, preview, assessment), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention any parameter semantics, the need to provide a dossier/preview/assessment, or what these represent. It fails entirely to compensate for the undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Export' and names the resource 'remediation bundle', which clearly indicates the tool's primary function. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like dietary_export_interoperability_preview or dietary_export_interoperability_signoff_packet, and the phrase 'governed interoperability readiness outcome' is vague jargon.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, exclusions, or mention any sibling tools. The only hint is 'for a governed interoperability readiness outcome', which is too vague to inform selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral nuance of 'explicit acute/chronic semantics,' which is useful, but it does not disclose how the scenario is constructed, whether validation occurs, or what the output contains. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity; still, it earns its place as a concise summary of the tool's primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex build tool requiring a nested request with residue_profile, consumption_profile, chemical_identity, and several semantic enum fields. The description provides almost no context about these inputs, their relationships, or how acute/chronic semantics affect the scenario. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed, but the input-side context is severely under-specified for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter, 'request', which is a complex object with nested required fields. The description's only parameter-related hint, 'acute/chronic semantics', merely echoes the existing IntakeWindowSemantic enum and does not explain the request structure, required profiles, model_family, scenario_class, or fit_for_purpose. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Build a dietary intake scenario') and highlights a key feature ('explicit acute/chronic semantics'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like dietary_build_bounded_intake_summary or dietary_build_probabilistic_intake_summary, so it is specific but not differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a residue profile and consumption profile), exclusions, or scenarios where other build tools would be more appropriate. It only states what the tool does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe and side-effect-free. The description adds minimal context by promising 'transparent' behavior and 'explicit assumptions,' but it does not specify what assumptions are made or how transparency manifests in the output. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and main subject. It is appropriately short, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context about inputs and assumptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with a large, deeply nested request schema and an output schema, yet the description offers only a one-line overview. It does not orient the agent to the required inputs, the two-dimensional methodology, or the meaning of 'explicit assumptions.' The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but input guidance is still inadequate for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter, 'request', is a complex nested object with numerous subfields. The description does not explain what the request should contain, which fields are important (dataset, residue_profile, uncertainty models), or how to structure the input. The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which is dense and has no descriptive text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the resource ('two-dimensional uncertainty intake assessment') with a qualifier ('transparent ... explicit assumptions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dietary_build_bounded_intake_summary and dietary_build_probabilistic_intake_summary by focusing on uncertainty assessment rather than summary generation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as dietary_build_bounded_intake_summary or dietary_build_probabilistic_intake_summary. It also fails to mention prerequisites like the need for a dietary survey dataset, residue profile, and residue uncertainty models, which are evident from the schema but not surfaced in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'governed' and 'audit-ready' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as how the bundle is assembled, whether data is pulled live, or any constraints 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Package,' making it concise. There is no unnecessary noise, but the brevity sacrifices substantive detail; still, conciseness itself is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the highly nested single-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description provides almost no orienting information. It fails to explain what a 'bundle' is, how the request fields relate to the described content, or what the output looks like. An agent has no way to infer the required structure of the 'request' object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 the 'request' parameter at all. Although 'metals occurrence context' and 'commodity-focus review prompts' loosely map to the occurrenceResult and reviewFocusResult sub-objects, the description provides no guidance on how to construct a valid request or what values affect the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it 'Package[s] governed metals occurrence context and commodity-focus review prompts into one audit-ready bundle,' which clearly identifies the action (package/export) and the resource (metals occurrence context + commodity-focus review prompts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like signoff_packet or review_dossier by the specific 'audit-ready bundle' phrasing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus the many sibling export bundles, nor does it state any alternatives or prerequisites. An agent is left without information on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds some context about 'pinned manifests and escalation overlays' but does not explain what these entail or what the exported dossier includes, providing limited additional behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant filler, making it appropriately concise. However, the wording is dense and jargon-heavy ('pinned manifests', 'escalation overlays') without elaboration, slightly reducing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the complex nested schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description stays at a superficial level. It does not explain the workflow of version pinning, what 'escalation overlays' are, or how the dossier is composed, leaving the agent without sufficient context to understand the tool's full purpose and operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single 'request' parameter. It does not mention that the request should contain an interpretation bundle and signoff packet, which is critical information that the description fails to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Package' with a specific resource 'metals monitoring interpretation/signoff workflow', which distinguishes it from sibling review dossiers for other domains. However, 'Package' is somewhat vague and the phrase 'pinned manifests and escalation overlays' adds terminology without fully clarifying the output's nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dietary_export_version_pinned_contaminant_monitoring_review_dossier or dietary_export_metals_monitoring_interpretation_bundle, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds one useful behavioral note: the tool returns records and does not perform exposure modeling. However, the 'metals' description conflicts with the schema's broad contaminantFamily enum, creating confusion about what records are actually returned. Since the description adds a caveat but also introduces an inconsistency, a middle score 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of about a dozen words, with no filler or redundancy. It fits in a glance and is efficiently written. However, conciseness does not compensate for missing substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a lookup with a required nested request object, five optional filters, and an enum, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what makes a 'review record,' how the filters interact, which contaminant families are accepted, or how this differs from similar lookup tools. The mismatch between the 'metals' wording and the broad enum further reduces completeness. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to orient the agent adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 of the five parameters (authority, focusFood, jurisdiction, commodityGroup, contaminantFamily). Parameter names and the contaminantFamily enum provide some self-evident structure, but required fields and acceptable values are not explained. The description's 'commodity-focus' phrase indirectly points to commodityGroup, but that's too implicit. With zero coverage and no compensation, this is below adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('governed metals commodity-focus review records'), so the primary action is clear. However, it is partially misleading because the input schema's contaminantFamily enum includes non-metal families like pesticide_residue and microplastics, making the 'metals' qualifier inaccurate. The caveat 'without implying a native exposure engine' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling lookup tools. It mentions 'review records' and 'commodity-focus,' which hints at a niche, but there is no explicit alternative selection or context such as 'use this for X, and dietary_lookup_metals_occurrence for Y.' The 'without implying...' phrase is a caveat about behavior, not a selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the purpose—it does not explain what happens to inputs, whether profiles are validated, or any side effects. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not additive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to read. However, its brevity edges toward under-specification, but as a structure dimension, it still earns credit for being clean and unambiguous in form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex input schema with rich nested types and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what 'coverage' or 'fitness' mean, what the output represents, or what preconditions are needed (e.g., both residue and consumption profiles must be provided). Annotations cover safety, but the semantic gap remains significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 of the parameters beyond the indirect reference to 'residue-profile' which maps to the residue_profile field. The request object also contains consumption_profile and scenario_class, neither of which is hinted at. The schema provides structure but no semantic explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Assess') and resource ('residue-profile coverage and fitness'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dietary_build_residue_profile or dietary_apply_residue_evidence. However, 'for the selected dietary workflow' is vague and does not specify what workflow or what 'coverage' and 'fitness' entail, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 exclusions, preconditions, or compare with sibling tools such as dietary_build_residue_profile, dietary_reconcile_residue_evidence, or dietary_assess_review_dossier_readiness. The phrase 'selected dietary workflow' implies a context but gives no concrete direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and adds context by specifying the dossier is version-pinned and the profile is governed/regulatory. It does not describe error behavior or the meaning of 'readiness', but annotations carry the safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence (13 words) that gets straight to the point. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The underlying schema is extremely complex (multiple dossier types, profiles, status enums), yet the description provides only a high-level statement. It does not explain what 'readiness' entails, what targetProfile refers to, or how results are used. With output schema present, return values are covered, but the rest of the context is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the request parameter, but it makes no mention of parameters. The only parameter ('request') is a complex nested object whose semantics are left entirely to the schema. This fails to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Assess') and identifies the resource ('version-pinned review dossier') and the comparison target ('governed regulatory readiness profile'), clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling assessment tools like dietary_assess_interoperability_preview_readiness, so it stops short of a top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the export/assess siblings. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the intended workflow context. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that the bundle includes governed evidence records and reviewer prompts, but does not explain what 'governed' means or any processing side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it concise and immediately readable. It could be slightly more informative, but it earns a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex nested input schema and the large sibling family, the description omits key context: prerequisites (e.g., a prior dietary_check_contaminant_monitoring_import), the meaning of 'interpretation bundle', and how it relates to signoff/dossier exports. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but operational context is largely missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the single 'request' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. Although the input schema's $defs are rich, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance, leaving the agent to rely solely on field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Package' with a clear resource ('a contaminant monitoring check with governed evidence records and reviewer prompts'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling signoff/dossier exports by emphasizing the bundle's composition, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to turn a contaminant monitoring check result into an interpretation bundle. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to the many sibling tools like signoff packets or review dossiers, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context about reviewer-facing output and pinned rationale, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as determinism, output format, or how decisions are processed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex export tool with a rich input schema, the description is too terse. It omits any mention of the required inputs (remediation bundle, reviewer ID/role, and decisions) and the overall workflow, leaving invocation ambiguous despite the available annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'request' parameter (a complex nested object) is not described at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's silent properties, but it does not mention the request structure, required fields, or how to provide remediation bundles and decisions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Export' and identifies the resource as a 'reviewer-facing signoff packet' with 'action decisions and pinned rationale.' It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling signoff packet tools (e.g., dietary_export_contaminant_monitoring_signoff_packet).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not state prerequisites, when to choose this tool over other export/signoff tools, or any context about the input bundle or decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds only the word 'normalized' about output format and does not cover behavior like validation, defaults, or error cases; with annotations present, this meets a baseline but adds little extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no wasted words; the action and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately structured but very brief, leaving other dimensions underserved. It is efficient rather than verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a highly complex nested request schema, the description is too short to provide adequate invocation context. It does not state that the request must include scenario and summary objects, nor does it mention workflow sequencing (e.g., building a dietary intake summary first). An output schema exists, so return values are less critical, but prerequisite and data-shape guidance is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'request' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what the request should contain (e.g., that it must include a DietaryIntakeScenarioDefinition and DietaryIntakeSummary). The schema's required fields are the only guide; the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond 'oral dose bundle.'
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Export') and identifies a distinct resource ('normalized oral dose bundle for PBPK consumers'), which differentiates it from sibling export tools like dietary_export_interoperability_preview or review dossiers. It does not explicitly state that the request bundles a dietary scenario and summary, but the core purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs. alternatives such as dietary_build_dietary_intake_scenario, dietary_build_bounded_intake_summary, or other export bundles. The phrase 'for PBPK consumers' implies an export use case, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or pipeline context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some behavioral context by mentioning pinned manifests and escalation overlays, but does not explain what these entail or whether any validation occurs. This 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with the verb front-loaded, containing no fluff or repetition. It is concise, though it could have packed more informative content without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the tool operates on a highly complex input schema (nested bundles and signoff packets) and sits among many similar sibling exporters. The one-line description is inadequate to convey the full context of what the dossier contains, how it differs from the non-version-pinned version, or what the agent should supply in the request. More detail is necessary for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and a single request parameter containing nested interpretationBundle and signoffPacket, the description's mention of 'interpretation and signoff outputs' provides only a faint mapping to the schema. It fails to explain the structure or required fields of the request, leaving the agent under-equipped to construct valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Package' with a clear resource: 'contaminant monitoring interpretation and signoff outputs', and adds scope with 'pinned manifests and escalation overlays'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that export just the interpretation bundle or just the signoff packet, and from other version-pinned dossiers by naming contaminant monitoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as dietary_export_contaminant_monitoring_interpretation_bundle, dietary_export_contaminant_monitoring_signoff_packet, or other version-pinned dossier exporters. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a little context with 'governed' and 'supported contaminant monitoring families,' but it does not explain what 'governed' means, filtering behavior, or any constraints beyond the schema. It 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 8-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning and there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested request object, multiple optional filters, an enum) and a large sibling context, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and clarification of key terms like 'governed' or 'occurrence-evidence.' While annotations and output schema cover some safety and return details, the description does not fill in gaps left by the 0% schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about parameters. The required 'request' object's fields (e.g., analyte, authority, matrixGroup) are not explained, so the agent cannot determine what values to supply or how they affect results. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the schema's structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a distinct resource ('governed occurrence-evidence records') with a scope ('supported contaminant monitoring families'). This distinguishes it from sibling lookups like dietary_lookup_contaminant_legal_limits or dietary_lookup_metals_occurrence, though it could be more explicit about the exact families covered.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling lookup/export tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and the parameter schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a little context by noting the return is 'governed' and includes 'optional advisory extensions', hinting at the response's nature, but it doesn't disclose details about pagination, authorization, or effects. This is a moderate contribution 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler; it states the verb and object directly. Every word adds meaning, front-loading the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too terse for a tool with a nested request object and several optional filters. It doesn't mention the required contaminantFamily parameter or explain how optional filters like jurisdiction or matrixGroup affect results. The tool name hints at 'reporting profiles', but the description doesn't tie the parameters to the returned conventions. Therefore, the description is inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is completely undocumented (0% coverage), and the description does not mention any of the parameters (contaminantFamily, authority, matrixGroup, jurisdiction). Since the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, the agent gets no help understanding what these parameters mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies a concrete resource: 'governed reporting-profile conventions' with 'optional advisory extensions'. This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like dietary_lookup_reference_values or dietary_lookup_contaminant_legal_limits, though the phrase 'reporting-profile conventions' is somewhat specialized.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific scenario, exclusions, or alternative tool names, unlike well-calibrated examples that name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether input profiles are modified or what 'reconcile' means in terms of conflict resolution. No contradiction with annotations, but no extra value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states the tool's purpose and output. It could be longer to include parameter details, but for the information it does convey, it is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite annotations and an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete for a tool with a complex nested input schema. It doesn't explain what 'reconcile' entails, how the strategy parameter affects behavior, what 'reviewable screening profile' means, or any prerequisites. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly beyond the most basic level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The only parameter is the 'request' object, but the description gives no information about its fields (chemical_identity, evidence_profiles, strategy, region_id). The field names offer some hints, but 'strategy' and the overall structure are unexplained, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (reconcile) on a specific resource (multiple residue profiles) with a concrete output (a reviewable screening profile). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dietary_build_residue_profile by focusing on merging existing profiles rather than constructing one from raw data, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies the scenario (when you have multiple residue profiles to reconcile) but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools such as dietary_assess_residue_evidence_fit or dietary_apply_residue_evidence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the validate/normalize/package steps, but it does not disclose validation rules, normalization behavior, or packaging details. There is no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core operation without filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite helpful annotations and an output schema, this is a complex operation accepting up to 2000 residue records, and the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits when to use the tool, what validation entails, and how it relates to other residue evidence tools, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema contains a single 'request' parameter with rich nested definitions, but the description provides zero parameter-level details (0% schema_description_coverage). Phrases like 'commodity residue evidence' vaguely reference the residue_records field, but chemical_identity and validation semantics are entirely left to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Validate, normalize, and package') and names the resource ('commodity residue evidence' into a 'dietary residue profile'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dietary_assess_residue_evidence_fit or dietary_apply_residue_evidence, but the distinct output ('residue profile') helps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 dietary_reconcile_residue_evidence or dietary_build_dietary_intake_scenario. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and terse description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral context of returning a 'stable normalized projection', which hints at deterministic output formatting. It does not contradict annotations and provides modest additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and outcome. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and rich annotations, the tool's input schema is highly complex (many nested objects and enums). The description does not clarify how to assemble the request object, what 'adapter-style' means, or any validation specifics, making it under-specified for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 it only hints at the CSV input. The single 'request' parameter and its many nested fields are not explained, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's field names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('adapter-style CSV input'), and clarifies the output ('stable normalized projection for review'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dietary_check_contaminant_monitoring_import by using 'adapter-style', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools such as dietary_compare_adapter_import_to_walkthrough. The purpose implies validation, but the description does not state appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already established. The description adds a transformation context (internal to sanitised-public) and mentions redaction records, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as whether it requires confidentiality annotations, how redaction decisions are made, or whether the source dossier remains unchanged 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core action and output in under 15 words, placing no burden on the reader to parse extraneous detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has a large and complex schema with a nested union of five different dossier types, yet the description is only one line. It lacks essential context about which dossier variants are accepted, what constitutes 'sanitised-public' versus 'internal review', and what the redaction records signify. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the operational prerequisites and transformation semantics are substantially under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining the request/dossier parameter. It offers only the vague hint 'from an internal review dossier' and does not describe which of the many accepted VersionPinned*ReviewDossier types are valid, how to structure the request, or what 'internal review dossier' means in terms of the schema's BundleProfile.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'derive' and identifies both the input ('internal review dossier') and output ('sanitised-public dossier with redaction records'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools that produce version-pinned or interpretation-bundle dossiers, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'from an internal review dossier' implies the input type but does not state when a sanitised-public output is needed or how this differs from other export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a bit of context with 'owner-scoped' and 'routed,' but it largely paraphrases the tool name and does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output format or whether the source board is affected. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 12-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Export,' and contains no redundant or filler content. It is optimally concise while communicating the core action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complex schema, rich sibling set, and domain-specific context, the description is far too brief. It does not explain what a 'handoff packet' contains, when to choose it over similar export tools, or what 'routed' means in this context. The output schema covers return values, but the description fails to provide sufficient orientation for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 the request structure or required fields (board, ownerLane). The phrase 'owner-scoped' weakly hints at the ownerLane parameter, but this is insufficient to compensate for the total absence of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Export an owner-scoped handoff packet') and mentions 'routed scientific follow-up items.' It conveys the core purpose and hints at scope ('owner-scoped'), which distinguishes it somewhat from sibling export tools. However, it does not clarify what makes a 'handoff' packet distinct from the similarly named 'owner_signoff_packet' or 'owner_remediation_packet', so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling export tools in the same domain. The description neither names alternatives nor gives exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting this specific variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds minor context about packaging contents but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations, nor does it contradict them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a highly complex input schema and there are similar sibling dossiers for contaminant monitoring and trade risk. The description does not specify that this is for adapter reviews specifically (only 'review bundle'), nor does it explain what 'release hashes' and 'fingerprints' mean in this context. Given the complexity, the description is too terse to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only restates 'review bundle', which matches the request object's field name, but does not explain the complex internal structure (AdapterReviewBundle) or any of the many nested fields. The schema is self-descriptive, but the description adds little value beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Package') and resource ('review bundle') with concrete details (release hashes, pinned template, walkthrough fingerprints). It clearly describes the action, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar sibling tools like dietary_export_adapter_review_bundle or other version_pinned dossiers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites. Sibling tools include several other version_pinned dossiers, and without contrast the agent cannot distinguish when this one is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds purpose context ('for downstream audit and escalation tracking') but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as validation, output format, or 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise for a tool of this complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema and comprehensive annotations exist, the description is too terse to be complete for this complex tool. It does not explain what inputs are required, what 'owner-lane' or 'version-pinned' mean in this context, or how this export differs from the many closely named sibling tools. The purpose clause helps but is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one 'request' parameter with 0% description coverage in both the schema and the tool description. The description mentions no parameter names or semantics. While the schema structurally defines sourceDossier and signoffPacket, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states an export action with a specific resource: a 'version-pinned owner-lane signoff dossier' and adds purpose ('downstream audit and escalation tracking'). It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling dossiers, though it reuses name terms and does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 similar export tools like dietary_export_scientific_follow_up_owner_handoff_packet or dietary_export_version_pinned_adapter_review_dossier. The description implies a use case but gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the qualifier 'governed' but does not elaborate on what governance means for the response or whether special auth or constraints apply. It 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence with no redundant wording. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful details, so it does not fully leverage the available space for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, the concept of 'method-support posture' is ambiguous, and without usage guidance the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 names the three relevant inputs (contaminant family, jurisdiction, authority) but provides no additional semantics such as which are required, optional defaults, or how 'posture' is determined. The enum and defaults are only present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('governed method-support posture') with clear dimensions (contaminant family, jurisdiction, authority). It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup tools by focusing on method support, but 'posture' remains somewhat jargon-heavy without further explanation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling lookup/assessment tools. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context by promising 'governed authority-specific' records and specifying that conflicts are not flattened, but it does not elaborate on pagination, filtering behavior, or conflict representation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action, resource type, and key behavioral nuance efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite rich schema annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with a nested request object and many optional filter fields. It does not explain when to use the lookups, how to construct the request, or what 'without flattening conflicts' means in practice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 parameter or filter. The phrase 'authority-specific' hints at the authority parameter, but the required substanceKey and optional filters (population, jurisdiction, referenceType, etc.) are left entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('governed authority-specific reference-value records') with a distinctive qualifier ('without flattening conflicts'), which helps distinguish it from sibling lookup/export tools. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative lookup tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dietary_lookup_contaminant_legal_limits or the various export tools. The description states only what the tool does, not the context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication requirements, side effects, or output details, but also does not contradict 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the core purpose without fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a rich schema and safety annotations, the description lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics. The tool has a complex nested request object, and the description does not help the agent understand how to populate it or when to choose this tool over its many siblings. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the missing context makes the description insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the 'request' parameter or any of its nested fields (remediationPacket, reviewerId, reviewerRole, decisions). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess how to construct the complex request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the primary action ('Export') and the specific resource ('owner-scoped signoff packet for scientific follow-up remediation items'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like handoff or remediation packets by emphasizing 'signoff' and 'owner-scoped'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, sequencing, or conditions that would indicate this tool is appropriate over similar export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and mutation profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, mainly hinting at output contents ('coverage semantics', 'reviewer prompts') but not disclosing side effects, requirements, or limitations. No contradiction exists, so a mid-range score 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It efficiently expresses the core purpose without unnecessary words or repetition of what the schema and annotations already provide.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex nested input schema and an output schema, but the one-sentence description offers only a high-level overview. It does not explain the request structure, what 'explicit coverage semantics' means operationally, or how reviewer prompts are generated. The annotations and output schema mitigate the gap, but the description alone is not sufficiently complete for smooth invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 only vaguely refers to a 'trade-risk screening result', which maps to the 'tradeReport' field inside the request, but it does not mention the request wrapper or the optional 'bundleNote'. With a large nested input schema and no parameter-level descriptions, this is insufficient guidance for constructing a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Package') on a specific resource ('a trade-risk screening result') and adds useful qualifiers ('explicit coverage semantics and reviewer prompts'). This distinguishes it from other bundle tools focused on monitoring, interoperability, or scientific follow-up. However, the verb 'package' is generic across many sibling bundle tools, so it is not perfectly crisp.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'dietary_export_version_pinned_trade_risk_review_dossier' or 'dietary_evaluate_global_trade_risk'. It offers no exclusions, no 'use this when' context, and no alternative recommendations. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds 'governed' and 'supported' to indicate curated data and family restrictions, but these are partially captured by the schema enum. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested request structure with five fields, and while the output schema exists, the description fails to explain the meaning or expected values of the optional parameters. The schema enum helps for contaminantFamily, but analyte, authority, matrixGroup, and jurisdiction remain opaque. The description is too sparse to guide correct invocation for a moderately complex input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description contains zero information about the request object or its fields (contaminantFamily, analyte, authority, matrixGroup, jurisdiction). The optional parameters are entirely undocumented, and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'governed analytical-method-evidence records' for 'supported contaminant monitoring families.' This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like dietary_lookup_contaminant_legal_limits or dietary_lookup_occurrence_evidence, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when analytical-method-evidence records are needed for contaminant monitoring families, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling lookup tools such as dietary_lookup_method_support or dietary_lookup_occurrence_evidence, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'governed' qualifier and specifies 'declared population and intake window' as selection criteria, but does not explain behavior when no profile matches or how preferred_profile_id affects outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or repetition, making it appropriately concise for a tool with a rich schema and annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the selection behavior (e.g., how preferences and commodity codes are used) is not explained, leaving notable gaps for a tool with nested input parameters. It is adequate for a read-only selection but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to mention the 'request' object or any of its fields except implicitly 'population' and 'intake window'. The schema contains meaningful parameters like region_id, preferred_profile_id, and required_commodity_codes, which are left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Select' and a clear resource 'governed dietary consumption profile', with qualifiers for population and intake window. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'build' or 'assess', though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 dietary_build_dietary_intake_scenario or dietary_lookup_reporting_profiles. The description implies a selection workflow but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds one behavioral detail ('surface commodity-level drivers') but does not disclose that the operation requires a base and candidate summary, nor does it describe the comparison semantics. This is acceptable but not rich 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a front-loaded active verb and no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the level of detail it provides.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a rich nested input schema (CompareDietaryScenariosRequest with two DietaryIntakeSummary objects) and a likely complex output, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'commodity-level drivers' means, what the comparison outcome looks like, or any prerequisites. The schema provides structural detail but not semantic completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'scenario summaries' and does not reference the required 'request' object or its base_summary/candidate_summary fields. The schema structure is detailed but the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('dietary scenario summaries') while highlighting the unique outcome ('surface commodity-level drivers'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like dietary_compare_adapter_import_to_walkthrough. However, it does not mention that exactly two scenarios (base and candidate) are compared, leaving out a core scope detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: use when comparing dietary scenario summaries. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided. Given similar compare tools in the sibling list (e.g., dietary_compare_adapter_import_to_walkthrough), the description does not clarify when to prefer this tool, but the resource type gives some differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minor context ('reviewer-facing', 'governed') beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or bundle/packet composition. Since readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already signal a safe, non-destructive operation, the lack of additional behavioral detail is acceptable but not enriched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action verb and contains no filler. It is concise while still conveying the core purpose and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate as a minimal purpose statement, but it leaves the agent without usage exclusions or guidance on required request fields. The rich schema, output schema, and annotations cover the structural and safety details, but the description alone is not enough to fully contextualize when and how to invoke the tool among many similar signoff/dossier siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0% and only one request parameter, the description needed to explain the request shape, but it only references the interpretation bundle. It never mentions reviewerId, reviewerRole, decisions, or packetNote, providing almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Export'), a precise deliverable ('reviewer-facing signoff packet'), and a clear scope ('governed contaminant monitoring interpretation bundle'). This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like the metals signoff packet or generic review dossiers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisite context, or mention of alternatives. Phrases like 'reviewer-facing' and 'governed' imply some context, but the description never tells the agent when to choose this over dietary_export_version_pinned_contaminant_monitoring_review_dossier or dietary_export_interoperability_signoff_packet.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output includes pinned manifests and release fingerprints, but does not discuss potential side effects or requirements like file persistence or network access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Package', and contains no redundant or filler wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having output schema and annotations, the description lacks contextual guidance for a complex export tool. It does not clarify the implications of 'version pinned' or differentiate from sibling dossiers like the contaminant monitoring version-pinned dossier, leaving the agent without enough context to distinguish appropriate usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter ('request') with 0% schema description coverage. The description partially compensates by naming the input as a 'trade-risk review bundle', which maps to the required reviewBundle property, but it does not explain any fields, defaults, or constraints within the bundle.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Package' with the resource 'trade-risk review bundle' and adds detail about pinned manifests, documentation, and release fingerprints. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dietary_export_trade_risk_review_bundle by emphasizing version pinning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the input profile is modified or a new merged profile is returned. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately front-loads the core action ('Merge additional residue evidence'). Every word is relevant, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with nested schemas, an output schema, and domain-specific semantics, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how conflicts are handled, whether existing records are replaced, how provenance is managed, or what the tool returns. The description feels incomplete for the complexity of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 the 'request' parameter's structure or key fields like override_existing. While the schema itself is rich, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the crucial merge/override behavior undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Merge' with clear resources: 'additional residue evidence' and 'existing dietary residue profile'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like dietary_build_residue_profile (which creates a new profile) and dietary_reconcile_residue_evidence (which reconciles evidence). The action is immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 instead of alternatives. It does not mention that it is for extending an already-built profile, nor does it contrast with sibling tools such as dietary_build_residue_profile or dietary_reconcile_residue_evidence. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds the owner-scoped context but does not disclose what the packet contains or how it behaves (e.g., download vs. returned object). This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, starts with the verb 'Export', and contains no redundant or filler text. It efficiently conveys the core purpose in 8 words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool operates in a complex domain with many similar sibling tools (e.g., owner_handoff_packet, owner_signoff_packet, signoff dossier). The description is too sparse to provide enough context about what a remediation packet is, how it differs from other packet types, or what the agent should provide as input. While an output schema exists, the high-level workflow and selection criteria are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With a single 'request' parameter that has 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain what to pass in the request. The schema itself is rich, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter guidance, leaving the agent to infer that the request must contain a handoffPacket without any clear indication from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Export' and a specific resource 'owner-scoped remediation packet for scientific follow-up handoff items'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like owner_handoff_packet and owner_signoff_packet by using 'remediation' as the key differentiator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 scenarios that warrant a remediation packet versus a handoff or signoff packet, nor does it name any sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds no behavioral information beyond restating the purpose—it does not mention what input is accepted, what output is produced, or any constraints or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and every word contributes to the purpose; under-specification is penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the schema and annotations are rich, the description provides almost no contextual guidance for selecting among more than 50 sibling tools. It does not clarify what makes a 'routing board' distinct, what 'readiness-side' means, or how the queueBundle input relates to the exported board.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single 'request' parameter, its required queueBundle, or optional boardNote. It only hints at follow-up items, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter-level explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Export') and a distinct resource type ('reviewer-operable routing board') scoped to 'readiness-side scientific follow-up items.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like queue bundles and owner handoff packets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: the tool is for exporting a reviewer-facing routing board for scientific follow-up items. However, there are no explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives, or exclusions, and the many sibling export tools make the selection ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'validated' precondition and the bounded/point-estimate scope, but does not disclose behavior details like how results are returned or what happens with invalid scenarios. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word adds meaning, clearly stating the action, the resource, and the input condition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with a deeply nested schema and many related siblings. The one-sentence description is insufficient to guide an agent on what 'bounded' means, how to determine if a scenario is 'validated', or how this result relates to other intake summary tools. Even with an output schema present, the invocation context is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single 'request' parameter. It says 'for a validated dietary scenario', which hints at the scenario object, but does not explain the request structure, validation requirements, or how the scenario should be constructed. This is minimal compensation for an undocumented parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Compute' and names a precise resource ('a point-estimate or bounded intake summary for a validated dietary scenario'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like dietary_build_probabilistic_intake_summary by explicitly covering only point-estimate and bounded variants, not probabilistic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for validated dietary scenarios, giving some context on prerequisites. However, it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives like the probabilistic or uncertainty intake summary tools, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions beyond validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the evaluation criteria (MRL violations and reference values) but does not disclose output details, prerequisites, or side effects beyond what annotations imply. It gives some contextual value but not rich behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. It earns its place by being efficient, although it could be more expansive without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex request schema with nested objects, enums, and array constraints, yet the description provides only a high-level statement. It lacks guidance on constructing the request, interpreting jurisdictions, or understanding the risk evaluation logic, making it incomplete for operational use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions MRL violations and reference values but does not map these concepts to the request fields (chemical_identity, residue_records, contaminant_family, target_jurisdictions). It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Evaluate global trade risk across jurisdictions based on MRL violations and reference values.' The verb 'Evaluate' and specific resource 'global trade risk' with the basis on MRL violations and reference values makes it distinct from sibling export/lookup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for trade risk assessment but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dietary_export_trade_risk_review_bundle or dietary_lookup_contaminant_legal_limits. It lacks exclusions or mentions of alternative approaches, so it only offers implied usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Validate' aligns with read-only behavior. However, it adds no extra context such as success/failure behavior, prerequisites, or limitations, so it neither exceeds nor contradicts 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a moderately complex nested request with multiple parameters and an output schema, but the description only covers the basic action. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what 'governed' records mean, or which fields are essential, leaving the agent under-informed about the validation process.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 parameter information. The schema contains a nested request object with 7 properties (e.g., csvText, jurisdiction, contaminantFamily) whose names are somewhat transparent, but the description does not compensate for the lack of detail, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Validate' and identifies the resource as 'contaminant-monitoring CSV input', further narrowing scope by specifying validation against 'governed occurrence and analytical-method evidence records'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export/lookup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied by the tool name and context as the step to validate a CSV before import, but the description does not provide direct guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only 'machine-readable' and 'readiness-side' context; it does not describe output details, prerequisites, or side effects, but it does not contradict 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and free of filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description conveys the core function but omits workflow context: it does not mention that a dossier and readiness assessment must be supplied, nor how this queue-bundle export differs from the related scientific-follow-up exports. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to document return values, but the missing usage context is still a clear gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole 'request' parameter is a complex object requiring a dossier and assessment, but the description provides no parameter-level guidance and the schema has no field descriptions. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must infer the payload structure entirely from type names and required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Export') and identifies a distinct resource ('machine-readable queue handoff for readiness-side scientific follow-up items'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like review-board or owner-handoff exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'readiness-side scientific follow-up items' implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the many sibling scientific-follow-up export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 behavioral context by specifying that the tool is 'validation-only' and that it produces 'unsupported-field reporting', giving insight into what the output preview contains 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler information. Every word contributes to defining the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a rich nested schema and an output schema, the description is too terse to be fully complete. It omits any explanation of the targetProfile parameter, prerequisites for the dossier, or what 'unsupported-field reporting' entails. The agent must rely entirely on structural schema field names, which is risky for such a complex request.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes a single 'request' object requiring 'dossier' and 'targetProfile', but the description provides zero parameter documentation, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what targetProfile values are accepted or how to construct the dossier, leaving the agent to infer semantics from field names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Build' with a resource 'OHT/IUCLID-aligned JSON export preview' and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'validation-only' and 'unsupported-field reporting'. It clearly communicates the tool's function and differentiates it from remediation/signoff export tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'validation-only' implies this is for preview/checking rather than final export, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. Sibling tools like dietary_export_interoperability_remediation_bundle exist, yet no guidance is given on when to choose this over them. Thus usage is only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adds 'reviewer-facing' and 'governed' context, but no additional behavioral traits such as output format, side effects, or prerequisites. Since annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate for the small extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It immediately states the action and target resource, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex request schema but is a simple export action. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks guidance on when to choose this signoff packet over sibling signoff tools, and does not explain the packet's contents beyond 'reviewer-facing'. With the complexity of the request, a bit more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only implies the interpretation bundle is the main input but does not mention reviewerId, reviewerRole, decisions, or packetNote. With a complex request object and no guidance, the agent must rely entirely on the schema to understand required parameters, so the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Export a reviewer-facing signoff packet for a governed metals monitoring interpretation bundle' with a specific verb (export), specific resource (reviewer-facing signoff packet), and scoping context (governed metals monitoring interpretation bundle). This distinguishes it from sibling signoff tools like contaminant monitoring or interoperability signoff packets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use when you need a signoff packet for a governed metals monitoring interpretation bundle. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, nor does it contrast with the many sibling signoff packet tools. Still, the context is clear from the resource named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds 'governed' and 'without executing a full Monte Carlo simulation,' hinting at deterministic, rule-based behavior, but does not elaborate on data handling, quality checks, or limitations. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action, inputs, and a key differentiator in an efficient manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested request with dataset and residue profile, plus a detailed output schema), the description is minimal but not fully insufficient. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks context about governance meaning, prerequisites, or when to choose alternatives, making it only minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'raw survey dataset,' ignoring the residue_profile component of the request. The input schema itself is rich and self-documenting, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage or add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and identifies the exact outputs ('governed intake distributions, percentiles, and zero-intake prevalence') plus the input source ('raw survey dataset'). It also distinguishes itself from a full Monte Carlo simulation, which differentiates it from sibling tools like dietary_build_probabilistic_intake_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without executing a full Monte Carlo simulation' provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it is a lighter-weight, governance-based alternative. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or give a direct 'use when...' instruction, 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.
Behavior3/5
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 adds that it 'emit[s] a focused diff', which reinforces the read-only nature but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or output granularity beyond what the output schema would provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Compare') and includes no redundant words or restatements of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex request schema and multiple sibling tools, but annotations and output schema carry much of the context. The description gives the core operation but leaves domain-specific terms like 'governed walkthrough' and 'focused diff' unexplained, which a less domain-aware agent might find insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description references 'checked adapter import result' and 'governed walkthrough', which map to check_result and walkthrough_name. However, it does not mention the numeric_tolerance parameter or clarify the nested structure of check_result, leaving partial compensation for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Compare') with specific resources ('checked adapter import result', 'governed walkthrough') and the outcome ('emit a focused diff'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dietary_check_adapter_import and dietary_compare_dietary_scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear usage context: comparing a checked adapter import result to a governed walkthrough. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds context that results are packaged into an 'auditable review handoff bundle,' but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as failure handling, output format, or any limitations beyond what annotations already state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and clearly states input and output. Every word contributes meaning; there is no wasted or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema and annotations cover return format and safety, but the description alone is minimal for an agent choosing among many sibling export bundle tools. It does not clarify the difference between this and similar 'review dossier' or 'handoff packet' tools, so selection context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the single 'request' parameter is richly defined. The description adds semantic meaning by equating 'adapter check' to check_result and 'walkthrough-diff' to comparison_result, which helps the agent understand how to construct the request object despite the schema lacking field-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Package') and names the exact resources and output: 'adapter check and walkthrough-diff results' become an 'auditable review handoff bundle.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling export bundles by specifying its input sources and purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used after obtaining adapter check and walkthrough-diff results, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives among the many similar 'export bundle' siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that returned limits are 'governed' and are not borrowed from other authorities. This is valuable and not present in the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. The key qualifiers 'governed', 'jurisdiction-specific', and 'without borrowing from other authorities' are front-loaded and contribute directly to tool selection and invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover side effects, the minimal description is largely sufficient for a read-only lookup tool. However, it omits guidance on the required contaminantFamily and the distinction between authority and jurisdiction, which are central to correct invocation. Despite this, the presence of structured schema and annotations raises the completeness above a minimal viable score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 the required contaminantFamily parameter or optional filters like authority, jurisdiction, matrixGroup, substanceKey, or commodityCode. The only hint is 'jurisdiction-specific', which loosely maps to the jurisdiction parameter but does not compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and names a precise resource: 'governed jurisdiction-specific contaminant legal limits'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like dietary_lookup_occurrence_evidence or dietary_lookup_reference_values. The qualifier 'without borrowing from other authorities' adds a unique scope that further separates it from other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied from the tool name and description: it is for retrieving legal limits for contaminants. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention competing lookup tools. The phrase 'without borrowing from other authorities' gives a hint about selection criteria but not enough for clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![dietary-exposure-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ToxMCP/dietary-exposure-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ToxMCP/dietary-exposure-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![dietary-exposure-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ToxMCP/dietary-exposure-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ToxMCP/dietary-exposure-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ToxMCP/dietary-exposure-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server