dossier

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data sources, aggregation methods, performance implications, or any restrictions. The term 'evidence-backed' hints at behavior but lacks specifics.

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 sentence, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is under-specified for the complexity; it could include a brief note on parameters or usage without becoming verbose.

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 tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description lacks detail on what constitutes a dossier, how evidence is gathered, and what the output contains. It feels incomplete.

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 the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameters 'topic' and 'limit' are not explained (e.g., what topic format, how limit affects results).

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 it returns an evidence-backed dossier for a topic, specifying the action (return) and resource (dossier). It distinguishes from siblings like search, source, and evidence by focusing on a compiled report.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like search or source.

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