run_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait: every call is persisted to an evidence ledger and yields an evidence_id that downstream findings must cite. It still says nothing about failure modes (invalid tool name), whether calls can be repeated, or what else is returned beyond the id.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the citation requirement immediately after. Nothing is padded or 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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is only partially sufficient: it explains the ledger side effect and one return value, but not how `params`/`run_id` are used or what the response contains beyond evidence_id.

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% for three parameters. The description only indirectly gestures at `tool` ("run one analysis tool") and mentions evidence_id, which is an output rather than a parameter. The opaque `params` object (arbitrary pass-through) and `run_id` (run association) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Run one analysis tool") and the key side effect, which is enough to distinguish it from list_analysis_tools (enumeration) and verify (validation). It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 phrase "one analysis tool" implies a single-tool-per-call constraint, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. that the tool name should come from list_analysis_tools). The evidence-ledger sentence describes the downstream workflow, not when to select this tool.

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