check_evidence

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lower. It adds a meaningful behavioral caveat that neither semantic support nor legal validity is certified, which informs expectations. However, it does not describe return values, error conditions, or how the 'dates' are used, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the caveat follows immediately. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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's complexity (multiple fields per claim, array input, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'check' entails, what constitutes a successful check, or what response format to expect. The 'as_of_date' parameter is hinted at but not elaborated. An agent lacks critical information to invoke the tool correctly beyond basic input construction.

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 for the parameters. It only mentions 'quotes' and 'evidence and dates', which vaguely maps to the 'quote' and 'evidence_id' parameters, but offers no explanation of 'claim_id', 'statement', 'fact_ids', or 'as_of_date'. The nested claims structure is entirely undocumented, making it hard for an agent to construct valid input.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' and a resource 'quotes against server-issued evidence and dates', which clearly conveys the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'compare_evidence', but the phrase 'server-issued evidence' adds a distinctive nuance. The caveat about semantic support and legal validity further clarifies what the tool does not guarantee.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_evidence or search. It provides no context about prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the purpose statement, which is insufficient given the sibling set.

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