review_draft_evidence_gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally and there is no contradiction. The description adds only the scope of what is mined, with nothing about cost, rate limits, or result shape; with annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is an adequate but unremarkable 3.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is jargon-heavy but every clause earns its place by naming a gap category.

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 return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a five-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without any guidance on parameter behavior or when this review should be run relative to sibling review 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% and none of the five parameters (version_id, assay_limit, min_hitcall, stressor_limit) are explained in the description. Only draft_id is obliquely implied by 'one draft', leaving the tuning parameters completely undocumented in prose.

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 gives a specific verb ('mine') tied to a resource ('one draft') and enumerates the five dimensions of gaps it surfaces (root metadata, topology, KE assay coverage, KER evidence fields, stressor resolvability). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like validate_draft_oecd or review_draft_bundle in intent, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as review_draft_bundle, review_draft_assay_cutoff_ordering, or validate_draft_oecd, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only loosely implied by 'one draft' and the gap-analysis framing.

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