justhandled_policy_change_evidence_builder

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions a $0.05 USDC cost on Base mainnet and vague 'version and effective-date guardrails'. It does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it performs blockchain writes, or what side effects or safety measures apply beyond cost.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the cost information is a concise, useful addition. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description clearly states the core purpose and cost, but it omits critical invocation details: no explanation of the required 'policies' parameter structure, no return value specification (no output schema), and no disclosure of side effects beyond the cost. An agent cannot confidently invoke the tool correctly based on this description alone.

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 does not mention or explain the 'policies' parameter at all. It gives no meaning to 'id', 'baseline', 'current', or the expected array structure, so an agent has no guidance for constructing valid input.

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 uses the specific verb 'Produce' and clearly defines the resource as 'clause-level evidence for policy additions, removals, text, applicability, and requirement changes'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling evidence/audit tools that focus on other domains like promise actions or completion receipts.

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?

The description implies the tool is used for generating policy change evidence but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparative guidance is given for the many sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool's name and purpose.

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