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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it explains facet counts, the upstream.classification vs asha.finding distinction, attribution requirements, bot_can_cite semantics, and that Asha only holds metadata/links while media opens upstream. This gives the agent critical post-invocation guidance.

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?

Four information-dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, facet output, attribution semantics, and citation/trust behavior. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most critical usage constraint is front-loaded.

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 is remarkably complete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations: it covers search purpose, result facets, record-level semantics, citation rules, and media behavior. It stops short of minor operational details like pagination defaults or what happens with no filters, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 coverage is 63%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds useful thematic context for filtering (dates, places, categories, sources) but does not systematically explain parameters like page, page_size, or the exact usage of from/to. It neither fully compensates for the 37% gap nor is it redundant with 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Palestine evidence graph', then details the exact record contents (dates, places, categories, source). It distinguishes itself from broader sibling search tools by emphasizing 'reviewer-approved records' and the evidence-graph scope.

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 clearly implies when this tool is appropriate: searching the evidence graph and using facet counts to understand corpus shape before narrowing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings like asha_search or conflict_events.

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