Compile evidence context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that it compiles context but does not authorize action, and mandates consented, data-minimized input. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, and constraints, and is front-loaded. Minor redundancy ('Use when: Use when evidence is mixed') slightly detracts from conciseness, but overall it earns its place.

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 nested schema and output schema, the description adequately covers when to use the tool, safety constraints, and non-decisional nature. It does not need to explain return values, but could be slightly more explicit about interaction with sibling 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 high (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter semantics, but it does provide general guidance on what evidence to submit, which is useful though not parameter-specific.

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 separates safe from unsafe inferences across specified contexts, using specific verbs and resource descriptions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself after evidence capture and before a verdict, and explicitly states it does not authorize action.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including 'Use after evidence capture' and 'Do not use as a go/no-go decision.' It also defines data handling requirements, giving clear contextual boundaries.

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