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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions evaluating support status and confidence but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires prior evidence graph construction, what confidence scales are used, or any side effects or prerequisites.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It loses a point because it is so brief that it omits any supporting context for a complex 9-parameter tool, but as a concise statement it is well-formed.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a large sibling family, the description is not complete enough. It only covers the core purpose and fails to provide usage context, parameter semantics, or behavioral boundaries. The presence of an output schema helps but does not resolve these gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and there are 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'claim' and 'evidence', while optional fields like object, subject, relation, assumptions, dependencies, and invalidation_conditions are entirely unexplained. The phrase 'with evidence' could even mislead, since evidence is optional per the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('support status and confidence for an individual claim'), which is clear and distinguishes it from graph-level tools like cognitive.build_evidence_graph or cognitive.audit_evidence_graph. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the 'individual claim' scope is sufficient for basic differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like cognitive.evaluate_cooperation, cognitive.verify_arithmetic_claim, and cognitive.get_final_evidence_result, an agent receives no explicit condition for choosing this tool.

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