get_most_censored

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned but omits any safety traits (e.g., read-only nature), side effects, or rate limits. The verb 'Get' suggests a read operation, but this is implicit.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys the core functionality. It could optionally detail the return format, but the existing description is adequate for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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

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

There is only one parameter (limit) with 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the input schema already provides (default 10, max 50). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'ranked list of the most censored countries', and the criterion 'by anomaly rate'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_censorship_index' or 'get_high_risk_countries' by focusing on anomaly rate ranking.

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

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

The description implies when to use: when a ranked list of most censored countries is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or any alternatives among siblings, which would improve decision-making.

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