evidence_group_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds scope ('across case files') and implies result granularity by contrasting with evidence_group_get, but doesn't disclose response format or pagination behavior.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and include an explicit pointer to a sibling. No wasted words.

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 output schema and annotations present, the description covers purpose, filters, and alternatives. It could mention that results are paginated summaries, but it's adequate for a search tool with a sibling detail tool.

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 description must compensate. It only mentions status, dates, and pagination generically, leaving many parameters (id, code, name, type, metadata, etc.) unexplained. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value beyond them.

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 'Searches evidence groups across case files with optional filters' with a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling evidence_group_get by noting that tool is for 'one group's full detail', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to find an evidenceGroupId or list groups pending sealing' and names evidence_group_get as the alternative for full detail. This provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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