cyber_censorship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that it detects and lists, but does not describe whether it returns current or historical measurements, if there are any rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no measurements are found. The description is too minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, with no extraneous words. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has two simple parameters and no output schema. While the description explains the purpose, it lacks detail on the return format (e.g., structure of the list, fields included) and does not mention any limitations (e.g., data recency, geographic coverage). It is minimally complete but could benefit from more context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (country_code and limit). The tool description does not add any additional context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation for this dimension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool detects internet censorship using OONI measurements and lists blocked websites and censorship methods. The verb 'detect' and the resource 'internet censorship' are specific, and the mention of listing differentiates it from sibling tools like 'cyber_connectivity' or 'cyber_outage'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for getting censorship data for a country, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'cyber_outage' for outages, 'cyber_connectivity' for connectivity status). There is no mention of when not to use or any prerequisites.

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