medeval_search_project_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful caution about source reliability, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like result ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior. With annotations covering the main risks, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 extremely short (8 words) but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads the core purpose but omits essential operational details, so it does not earn its brevity.

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 search tool with 8 parameters, a cautionary note, and no schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what results look like (despite having an output schema), how filters combine, or what 'bounded local evidence' means in practice. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 8 parameters. It provides no explanations for ambiguous ones like node_type, source_kind, evidence_type, or hide_low_confidence. Only query, project_id, and top_k are somewhat self-explanatory by name, but the description adds no value to any parameter.

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 states 'Search bounded local evidence' which is a verb+resource, but 'bounded local evidence' is vague and doesn't specify what kind of evidence or how it relates to a project. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like medeval_build_section_context, which likely also deals with project evidence.

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, and no mention of preferred use cases. The caution to 'inspect sources before factual use' is a general reliability note, not a usage guideline.

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