search_hypothesis_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it adds value by specifying the allowed stance values and requiring both sides to be called. These are non-obvious behaviors not visible in the schema. It could be more explicit about read-only semantics, but '检索' and the search-oriented name imply a non-mutating operation.

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 entire guidance is one compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then packs in the stance values and the mandatory two-call pattern. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation details: purpose, stance values, and the requirement to call both sides. The main omission is the meaning of the optional 'query' parameter, but because it has a default and is not required, this does not block correct use.

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 description clarifies that 'stance' takes either support or challenge and interprets 'hypothesis' as a causal hypothesis, which is meaningful given 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not explain the optional 'query' parameter at all, leaving one parameter semantically unaddressed.

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 searches evidence for a causal hypothesis and divides the search by stance ('support' or 'challenge'), giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings such as search_sources, but the stance-based scope is enough to identify its distinct role.

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 instruction '两侧都必须调用' is an explicit, actionable usage rule: the agent must invoke the tool with both support and challenge stances. It gives clear context for how to use the tool, although it does not mention when to prefer it over sibling tools.

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