validate_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost none of it: no side effects, no permission requirements, no statement of what happens on mismatch, no indication whether this is a read-only check or a mutating operation. Only the matching condition is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its scope come first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be fully self-sufficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which lowers the bar. Still, for a validation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the definition leaves the semantics of a 'match' and the failure behavior unstated.

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% with three required parameters, so the description must compensate. It does map loosely onto all three params (citations, instance, request), but adds no format or syntax detail — e.g., what a citation string looks like or how instance_id/request_id relate to it. Partial compensation only.

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 gives a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('citations') plus the scope conditions (match the investigated instance and request). No sibling in the list performs validation, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated. Clear, but not maximally sharp about what a 'match' entails.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Usage can only be inferred from the purpose sentence (i.e., call it when you have citations to check). No routing information relative to siblings like get_instance_summary or get_timeline.

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