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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'evaluate support status and confidence.' It does not state whether the tool modifies the evidence graph, whether it is read-only, how it handles incomplete evidence, or what side effects might occur.

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 11-word sentence with no filler and a clear front-loaded verb. It is appropriately concise for the core purpose, though the brevity leaves deeper context to be covered in other dimensions.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. Even though an output schema exists, an agent still lacks guidance on how to provide evidence, what role relation/invalidation_conditions play, and when this evaluation is the right choice among many cognitive siblings.

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 the description compensates almost not at all: it mentions 'evidence' but says nothing about the required 'claim' parameter or the meaning of object, subject, relation, assumptions, dependencies, task_structure_id, or invalidation_conditions. The parameter names are suggestive but the description adds no real semantic value.

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 with evidence'), so an agent can grasp the core function. However, it does not differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as cognitive.evaluate_claim_evidence or from cognitive.verify_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_evidence_graph, audit_evidence_graph, verify_arithmetic_claim, or evaluate_claim_evidence. The description gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or context around prerequisites.

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