find_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a negative constraint — excerpts and page numbers are server-derived and cannot be supplied by the agent — but says nothing about read-only semantics, required permissions, rate limits, or result shape. It adds real value yet leaves key behavioral traits undocumented.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying a real constraint rather than restating the name. It is lean, though arguably too lean given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent without the semantics needed to fill in item_id and query confidently; only the server-derived-field note is covered.

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 0% across three parameters (item_id, query, limit), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains what item_id identifies, how the query is matched, or what limit controls; the only hinted semantics come indirectly from "page-indexed source text."

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?

States a specific verb ("Search") and a clearly bounded resource ("trusted page-indexed source text"), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like build_evidence_matrix or validate_evidence_assessment. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it isn't a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or exclusion statements, and no routing to alternatives among the four sibling tools. The phrase "trusted page-indexed source text" implies scope, but the agent must infer when to call this versus list_sources or run_document_review.

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