validate_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether validation is read-only, what happens on failure (throw vs. structured result), whether it mutates or normalizes the payload, or any side effects — leaving the safety profile entirely implicit.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a validation tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves out failure behavior and the relationship to the completion-gate workflow it references.

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% for the single "evidence" parameter, so the description must compensate — but "payload structure" only restates the parameter name. It gives no information about the expected shape, required item fields, or valid values of the evidence array.

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?

States a specific verb ("Validate") and resource ("evidence payload structure"), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling check_completion_evidence, which sounds like an overlapping concern, so the agent must guess which one to reach for.

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 clause "before it can satisfy a completion gate" hints at sequencing but names no alternative tool or condition for choosing this over check_completion_evidence, compact_evidence, or build_verification_plan. No when-not guidance is given.

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