research_assess_evidence

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds that it returns evidence tier and confidence, but does not disclose other behavioral traits. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single short sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could be structured with more detail.

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 basic purpose and returns, but given the existence of an output schema and sibling tools, it lacks details like evidence tier scale or confidence interpretation. It is minimally complete for a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only mentions 'claim' and 'sources' implicitly, adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool assesses a claim against sources and returns evidence tier and confidence. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like research_web or research_deep, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 evaluating claims with provided sources, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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