recall

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses how claims are ranked, what fields are returned, how as_of changes behavior, and how intent can override the default reading—offering a clear behavioral model.

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 front-loaded and tightly structured. The short opening sentence states purpose, the warning section earns its place by preventing a real misuse, and the parameter notes are compact and useful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, query formulation, ranking behavior, return fields, and key parameters. It is nearly complete, but the lack of explanation for k and include_superseded, plus no detailed return format, prevent a perfect score.

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 0%, so description compensation is critical. It thoroughly explains query, as_of, and intent, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, k and include_superseded are left unexplained, a modest gap considering the useful context provided for the other parameters.

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: 'Answer a question from the claim graph.' It clearly differentiates recall from sibling tools by emphasizing ranked question answering over timeline, conflict, or stats navigation.

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 gives strong usage guidance with 'PASS THE QUESTION, NOT KEYWORDS,' concrete examples, and when to use as_of or intent. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or state when not to use recall, so it misses explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.

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