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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns provisional evidence findings, verification depth, gaps, and next evidence needs, and that final judgments are human-gated. This gives agents an accurate expectation of output and constraints, even if it does not cover side effects or permissions, which are less relevant for a research tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function and immediately follows with output and constraint context. Each sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and outlines the return value categories (provisional findings, verification depth, gaps, next needs). However, it does not explain the optional parameters or how they affect the evidence synthesis, which is a noticeable gap given the tool has five parameters and no output schema or annotations. The core behavior is clear, but parameter guidance is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'research question', which maps to the required researchQuestion parameter, but provides no guidance on topic, references, maxReferences, or proposedContribution. This is minimal compensation for a schema with zero parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: it researches and synthesizes traceable scientific evidence for a research question. It also clarifies the scope of the tool by explicitly noting that final novelty, patentability, and publication judgments are human-gated, which distinguishes it from a final-decision tool. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 usage for evidence synthesis on a research question, and the human-gated note hints that this is a provisional step before human review. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like axenomia_human_review_gate or provide when-not conditions. The context is implied rather than directly stated.

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