evidence_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only a vague epistemic caveat rather than any behavioral trait: nothing about scoring, ranking, index freshness, or result fields, though output schema is absent.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the verb+resource, so it is not bloated. But the second sentence is cryptic and consumes space without earning it, leaving the definition under-specified rather than concise.

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?

A search tool with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and two required inputs requires far more than two sentences. There is no explanation of results, ranking, pagination, or how it relates to the many sibling search tools.

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% and the description adds zero meaning to the three parameters (projectId, query, limit). The agent gets no indication of query syntax (natural language? keywords?), limit default, or projectId semantics.

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 says 'Search the project passage index', which is close to restating the name evidence_search. It never clarifies what a 'passage' is, what corpus is searched, or how it differs from siblings like source_search, map_search, or case_overview.

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?

Only the cryptic phrase 'Retrieval relevance is not researcher acceptance' is offered as guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use, no alternatives named (source_search/map_search exist), and no prerequisites such as whether a project must be in a particular state.

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