find_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it is ambiguous whether 'verify passages before citing' is a tool behavior or an instruction to the agent. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it validates passages, mutual performance, or side effects, leaving behavioral understanding uncertain.

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 fits in one short sentence with two clauses, both contributing: the first states the primary purpose, the second the critical usage warning. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not explain what the returned passages look like, how to interpret them, or what effects 'limit' influences. Given the claim-relevance domain, an expert agent needs more guidance about the result format and ratio with sibling tools.

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 indirectly covers 'claim' by referencing a claim, but it never mentions the 'limit' parameter or its role, relying entirely on the parameter name and default value. This is insufficient for full compensation.

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 a specific action ('Find passages') with a clear scope ('relevant to a claim'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_document or get_passage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_library, so the differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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 'relevant to a claim' implies the tool is for claim-driven evidence retrieval, and 'verify passages before citing' suggests a downstream verification step. But the description provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions among the listed sibling tools.

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