compare_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Build bounded cross-paper comparison rows' hints at a limit but doesn't explain how the tool operates (e.g., it queries subchunks, how rows are aggregated, what 'bounded' means exactly, or any side effects). The description lacks detail on the process or output structure beyond high-level content.

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 communicates the core purpose and key output elements without redundancy. Every word adds value.

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?

While the schema provides parameter details and the output schema exists, the description lacks an overview of how the tool fits into a workflow. It doesn't explain what 'comparison rows' are, how they differ from sibling tool outputs, or when to invoke it. For a tool with 9 parameters and multiple siblings, this is a notable gap in usability guidance.

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 adds no parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline of 3. It does not clarify how parameters like 'limit' or 'document_ids' influence the comparison rows.

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 action ('Build') and resource ('bounded cross-paper comparison rows'), and specifies the content (claims, entities, spatiotemporal evidence, source locators). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_evidence or get_spatiotemporal_evidence, which focus on retrieving individual pieces rather than building comparison rows.

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 use case is implied by the phrase 'cross-paper comparison' but no explicit when-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided. The description doesn't mention when to prefer this over search_evidence or trace_source, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and purpose.

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