web_evidence_to_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It does disclose that the tool stores data in a SQLite session, which is a side effect. However, it omits details about the storage mechanism, potential overwrites, or any other effects that could impact the session state.

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 with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of the tool (9 parameters and an output schema), the one-sentence description is too brief. It does not explain what constitutes 'web evidence', how the parameters affect behavior, what the 'compact result' contains, or the expected return format. The description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke or interpret the 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%. None of the 9 parameters (query, run_id, attempt_no, etc.) are explained in the description, leaving the agent to infer meanings solely from parameter names, which may be ambiguous.

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's function: it obtains web evidence and stores a compact result in SQLite session. This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like patent_evidence_to_session and publication_evidence_to_session, which focus on other evidence types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or situations where other evidence tools would be preferred.

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