audio_evidence_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated, and the description doesn't disclose any behavioral constraints (e.g., freshness of sources, error conditions, or scope limitations). It adds minimal value beyond the name itself.

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 sentence with no filler. The key nouns ('authoritative sources' and 'exact claim boundaries') are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is somewhat adequate but omits details about the return format, whether sources are cached or live, or how 'claim boundaries' are defined. The jargon may confuse agents, and this gap is not compensated by annotations or schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what is listed (sources and claim boundaries), which is useful given no schema parameters exist to clarify behavior. There is no ambiguity about inputs.

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 lists 'authoritative sources and exact claim boundaries used by the analysis engine,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like audio_target_registry or audio_dataset_catalog, so the purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling contrast.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent without context for selecting this over similar registry/dataset tools.

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