search_counterevidence_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing behavioral limitations: the tool returns candidates only, does not prove contradiction, and does not alter support verdicts. It stops short of describing return structure or read-only guarantees, but the search-oriented language and limitation statements provide strong transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second clarifies scope and next steps. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or 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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough high-level context to invoke it correctly and know what to do with results. It could be slightly more complete by describing the shape of a 'review candidate,' but the workflow guidance and clarity of purpose make it largely sufficient.

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 for the two parameters, but it does not explain claim or top_k. The parameter names and titles are somewhat self-explanatory, so this is not a 1, but the description adds no explicit parameter-level meaning and top_k is entirely unaddressed.

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: 'Search for scholarly records that may contain counter-evidence.' It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating it returns review candidates only and does not prove contradiction or change a support verdict, so an agent can tell it apart from verification or audit 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?

The description clearly states when not to rely on this tool: it does not prove contradiction and does not change a support verdict. It also gives the correct follow-up action, 'run claim-support checks on any promising candidate before editing text or replacing citations,' which aligns with the sibling tools while not requiring the agent to infer the workflow.

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