audit_catalyst

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses parallel execution, deterministic verdict categories, and explains the meaning of CLEAN. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or side effects, but the behavioral summary is fairly transparent for a composite tool.

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 the core purpose. While slightly verbose, each sentence contributes useful information (e.g., verdict categories, CLEAN definition). Could be tightened but remains efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's function, verdict categories, and logic behind CLEAN. It lacks precise return format details but is sufficient for an aggregator tool with deterministic output.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds value by explaining why drug is at drug level and that sponsor is optional for FDA fallback, providing context beyond the schema.

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 'FORENSIC AGGREGATOR' and specifies that it runs 8 connectors in parallel to return a deterministic verdict (CLEAN | FLAG | BEAR_SIGNAL | BLACK_FLAG). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are individual data sources, making the purpose and differentiation clear.

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 implies usage for obtaining a composite signal and calls it 'the strongest long signal this tool gives,' but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does contrast with siblings indirectly by being an aggregator, but could be more explicit.

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