study_evidence

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. But the description adds little: no mention of what 'dated source text' contains, how pagination terminates, or what happens when offset exceeds available content. 'include_items' effects are implied but not explained.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. The clipped style hurts readability slightly but every clause carries information.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, no schema descriptions, and no annotations gaps left to the description. The description omits the required parameter entirely, never explains the paging termination condition, and doesn't clarify the relationship to sibling read tools. Inadequate for the complexity.

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 the description must compensate — and it only partially does. It explains next_offset (offset) and include_items, but says nothing about max_chars, the required observation_id, or default behaviors. Two of four parameters are undocumented everywhere.

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?

States a verb ('Read') and resource ('dated source text') with a paging mechanism ('in pages'). But 'source text' is vague against siblings like study_read_file, study_read_resource, study_read_service, and study_collections — it doesn't explain what kind of source this is or how it differs from those read tools.

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?

No when-to-use versus alternatives. The sibling set contains four other 'read' tools, yet nothing routes the agent between them. Only usage hint given is the paging mechanic (continue with next_offset), which is operational, not selection guidance.

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