get_spatiotemporal_evidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. While 'Query' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, return format, or any side effects. It only restates the purpose without adding behavioral context beyond the verb.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and filter types, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It omits context about the evidence_type parameter, limit behavior, and how it relates to sibling tools. Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent for a tool of this complexity.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping key parameters into 'document, Subchunk and research-area filters', but it omits other parameters like evidence_type and limit, which are covered by the schema. Overall, the description provides a helpful summary but does not fully compensate for the one undocumented parameter.

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 with a specific verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('structured spatial and temporal evidence'), and lists the key filter dimensions (document, Subchunk, research-area). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_evidence or compare_evidence by emphasizing the spatiotemporal scope and specific filter 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 implies when to use the tool by naming the filters, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or contrast with sibling tools. It is clear about the input filters but lacks any guidance on use cases or alternative selection.

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