validate_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that validation is against a schema and does not verify truth, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or discuss permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with efficient content: first states core purpose, second adds usage guidance and limitations. Front-loaded, no redundancy.

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?

Given single parameter and no output schema, description mentions 'Returns schema validity and errors' but lacks detail on return format. Does not differentiate from similar sibling 'validate_brief'. Adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'Pass the parsed evidence pack as evidence_json', largely restating the schema description. No additional constraints or format details.

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 validates an evidence pack against a schema, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'audit_claims' by clarifying it does not verify truth or sufficiency, only structural usability.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you need to confirm... structurally usable' and delineates what it does not do (truth, currency, sufficiency). Provides clear context but could name alternatives for truth verification.

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