drill_down

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are redacted and field-limited, and that the response reports estimated source bytes examined (cost transparency). However, it doesn't mention auth needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds meaningful value but leaves gaps for a cost-path tool.

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 sentences, compact and front-loaded with the core purpose first. The second sentence about cost-path reporting is relevant. No wasted words, though the dense jargon ('bounded raw evidence', 'capsule') hurts accessibility slightly.

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?

For a tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters (2 undocumented by any prose and only structurally named in schema), the description is too thin. It doesn't explain return format, how fields filtering works, or resolution mechanics. The cost-path framing is useful but insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives zero parameter information beyond the schema: fields, consumer, capsule_id, evidence_id are all unexplained in prose. The description doesn't clarify what 'fields' restricts, what a 'consumer' represents, or relationship between capsule_id and evidence_id.

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 states it retrieves 'bounded raw evidence behind a reference (redacted, field-limited)', giving a specific verb+resource. However, the term 'reference' and 'capsule' are domain jargon not defined, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from get_capsule or find_related_capsules siblings. It does add the distinguishing cost-path detail.

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 phrase 'explicit cost path' implies it should be used when cost matters, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than stated explicitly.

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