agora_source_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context that findings are 'untrusted remote content' and 'do not decide truth,' which helps an agent interpret the output cautiously. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds an important trust caveat without padding.

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 the description need not explain return values. For a simple one-parameter audit tool, the purpose and trust caveat give enough context to invoke it and interpret findings. It is only slightly incomplete because it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over related evidence or claim tools.

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% for the single claim_id parameter, so the description must compensate. By saying 'one Claim's Evidence provenance,' it clarifies that claim_id identifies the claim being audited, adding meaning beyond the bare string schema. It does not specify format or expected identifier conventions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Audit one Claim's Evidence provenance.' It is clear what the tool does for a single claim. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this audit from sibling tools like agora_get_evidence or agora_get_claim.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as agora_get_evidence or other claim-inspection tools. The description implies an auditing context but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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