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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuine value by disclosing 'Credential: none' and 'Cost: Free', which answers the main auth and cost questions for an info tool, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating or whether any side effects occur.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the substantive content (what it explains, credential, cost) is front-loaded. The first-person framing ('I want to know...') reads like a user utterance rather than tool documentation, which is a minor structural oddity but costs little.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description covers the necessary ground: what it reports, that it requires no credential, and that it is free. Retention and co-signing details are previewed, which is sufficient without a return schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose semantics need clarification, and the description's list of returned topics is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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 names a specific resource (the private evidence archive) and enumerates what the tool returns: availability, retention period, upload format, and co-signing mechanics. This is clearly more than a restatement of the name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like preserve_evidence or begin_held_upload.

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 opening ('I want to know whether evidence storage is available and what I can upload') implies a usage trigger, but no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-not guidance. An agent can infer intent but must guess how this differs from preserve_evidence/upload flows.

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