14 tools with complete schemas and descriptions, but quality varies significantly. Tool names follow verb_noun convention well (search_emails, get_email, evidence_add). Descriptions are present but often generic (avg ~80 chars, below 194-char baseline). Parameters have types and descriptions, but lack constraints (enums, ranges, patterns). No output schemas documented. Error handling guidance absent. Security concerns: evidence_* and dossier_* tools lack permission gates; mailbox_sync is WRITE but no dry-run/confirmation pattern. Composition is reasonable, tools are single-purpose, but chains require manual ID passing.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Example: search_emails returns {results: [{uid, subject, from, snippet, relevance_score}], total_count, next_cursor}. This enables LLMs to chain tools correctly.
• Add confirmation/dry-run pattern to evidence_delete and dossier_create. Return a confirmation_id and require a confirm_delete(confirmation_id) call before executing. Prevents accidental data loss.
• Implement permission gates: check user/agent scopes (read:evidence, write:evidence, admin:evidence) before executing tools. Return 403 Forbidden with required scope in error message.
• Expand descriptions to 100-200 chars. Add WHEN to use and dependencies. E.g., 'evidence_add: Add an evidence item to the investigation database. Call after search_emails or get_email to extract key quotes. Requires write:evidence scope.'
• Add parameter constraints: relevance as enum [1,2,3,4,5]; top_k as integer min=1 max=100; category as enum from predefined list. Validate in tool implementation and return actionable errors.