arbitration__submit_evidence

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

No annotations provided. Description adds context about evidence kinds and weights, but does not disclose side effects, auth specifics beyond named parties, or idempotency. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a prefix. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with purpose. 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?

Covers when to use and constraints, but lacks details about outcome (e.g., evidence is appended) or prerequisites. Missing some completeness for a simple 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'kind' parameter with enums and weights, but does not describe 'case_id', 'party', or 'content'. Partial coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool submits evidence in an arbitration case, with specific constraints (while case is open, only named parties). Distinct from siblings like file_case or get_case.

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?

Provides clear context: use when case is open, only named parties may submit. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the constraints are helpful.

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