Evidence Gap Analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description is not required to state read-only. The description adds behavioral context: it treats absence of evidence as a forensic finding, not an invitation to invent. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand its defensive role against hallucination.

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 concise (approx. 90 words), front-loaded with the core purpose and output structure. Every sentence is informative: definition, example, use cases. No redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete context: input examples, output fields enumerated, and use case scenarios. Agent can confidently select and invoke this 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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description supplements with realistic examples (e.g., '#4A535C', 'cyanosis in a death chamber', 'DarkHistory', default n_candidates=5), which adds semantic clarity beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: given a hex color and a proposed claim, it returns archive support level, missing evidence, required source type, and safe agent wording. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing as an anti-hallucination endpoint for evidence gap analysis.

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 provides a concrete example and lists relevant workflows (museum, documentary, editorial, legal, forensic), clearly indicating when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with similar siblings like archive_search or archive_audit.

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