Fetch Evidence

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds that evidence is 'preserved' and includes 'source citations,' but does not detail other behavioral traits like caching or rate limits. It adds modest value beyond 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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is included.

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?

Despite having an output schema that may cover return values, the tool has 11 parameters and the description provides no hints about their roles or how parameters like mode or sequential_mode affect behavior. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, it mentions none of the 11 parameters (e.g., url, query, mode). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, severely limiting tool invocation understanding.

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 fetches and preserves external evidence with source citations. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'external evidence' are specific, and the usage clause 'Use when a claim needs verified backing' differentiates it from sibling tools like arif_sense_observe or arif_heart_critique.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use when a claim needs verified backing or factual grounding.' This provides a clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative tool references.

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