check_claim_support_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the paper-resolution step, the reranker+NLI ensemble, the precise meaning of insufficient_evidence, the no-gated-full-text-fetching policy, first-use model downloads, heuristic fallback, and multilingual configuration.

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 dense but every sentence adds operational value: purpose first, then verdict semantics, evidence scope, failure modes, and multilingual tuning. There is no filler or repetition.

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 complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers verdict semantics, fallback behavior, evidence scope, and model configuration. It stops short of describing the full return payload and the exact rules for identifying the paper, so some call details still rely on parameter-name inference.

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%, and the description only explicitly explains full_text, full_text_file, and two environment variables. The remaining parameters such as doi, arxiv_id, abstract, raw_text, evidence_text, evidence_chunks, lang, year, venue, and authors are left to be inferred from their names, with no guidance on how paper resolution uses them.

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 opening sentence states a specific action (judge whether a cited paper supports a claim) on a clear object, and it lists the exact verdicts. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as verify_citation_tool or audit_claim_support_tool, but the tool's function is unmistakable.

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 gives useful input guidance: agents may pass full_text or full_text_file, and multilingual models can be enabled via environment variables. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like check_claim_support_set_tool or search_counterevidence_tool, so cross-tool routing is left implicit.

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