rate_evidence_quality

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

The description discloses the heuristic and evaluation criteria, providing some insight into behavior. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and criteria. No extraneous words.

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 lacks details about the return value or output format, which is critical for a rating tool. It also does not differentiate from similar sibling tools. Given the lack of output schema, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect.

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?

The parameters (claim, context, papers) are not explained in the description. The listed criteria (study type, causal strength, etc.) are not mapped to specific parameters, leaving the agent to guess how they relate. Schema has 0% coverage, so the description should compensate but does not.

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 rates evidence quality and lists the criteria used (study type, causal strength, etc.). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like critique_claim or classify_claims, which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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