memory_check_evidence_eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds only 'never semantic claim support', which provides minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. No contradiction.

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 (7 words, one sentence), but this is not effective conciseness—it omits critical information. Every sentence should earn its place, but this sentence leaves the agent guessing about parameters, usage, and output.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'evidence integrity' means, how to use the four parameters, or what the tool does in practical terms. For a tool with 4 parameters and 2 enums, the description is severely incomplete.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not mention any of the four parameters (claim, evidence, claim_type, materiality) or explain their roles. The description fails entirely to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool checks 'exact evidence integrity and count' and explicitly excludes 'semantic claim support'. The verb 'check' and resource are specific, and the negative constraint helps distinguish it from siblings like memory_search_candidates. However, 'integrity' is vague and could be more precise.

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 provides a negative constraint ('never semantic claim support') but no positive guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or when to prefer this over sibling tools like memory_fetch_evidence or memory_audit_ledger.

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