vaglio_appraise

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that Tier D leaves a trace (refused_reason) and that Tier A requires abstract. However, does not explain if the tool is idempotent, destructive, or any side effects.

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?

Concise and well-structured with line breaks. Every sentence adds value. Not excessively verbose, though could be slightly more compact.

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 (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers high-level behavior but lacks detail on many parameters and return value. Incomplete for a complex tool.

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?

Only explains abstract and refused_reason semantics. With 0% schema coverage, few parameters (doi, transfer, mechanism, fulltext_path) are left unexplained. Description does not compensate for missing schema 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?

Clearly states the tool attaches an evidence tier to a claim, with specific context for Tier A and Tier D. Distinguishes from siblings implicitly through action (appraise vs search/read/status/sources/inscribe).

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?

Provides guidance on when to use Tier A (abstract required) and Tier D (requires refused_reason). Does not compare to sibling tools, but the difference in action is clear.

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