check_claim_support_set_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains caller-provided full-text handling, the evidence_scope tagging, that gated full text will not be fetched, the aggregation behavior, the support_mode_details policy, the minimum support requirement, and how contradictions are surfaced.

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 front-loaded with a crisp summary and then efficiently adds behavioral details. It is somewhat dense and jargon-heavy, but each sentence contributes meaningful information and there is no filler.

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 core behavior is well covered, including input semantics, aggregation policy, support threshold, and risk signaling. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves counterevidence parameters and the full return shape underspecified, making it adequate but not complete.

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 thoroughly explains the citations parameter, including accepted object shapes and full-text evidence rules, and claim is self-evident. However, lang, counterevidence_top_k, and include_counterevidence are not explained at all, leaving majority of parameters underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Judge whether a SET of cited papers supports one claim sentence.' The emphasis on SET and aggregated per-citation checks clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling check_claim_support_tool.

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 makes the context clear: it is for judging a set of citations together and aggregating their support. It references verify_citation_tool for citation object format, which helps routing, but it never explicitly states when not to use this tool or names alternatives such as check_claim_support_tool.

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