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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description needn't repeat those. It adds useful context by noting that this tool returns 'current versions' and that file transfer/approval are separate operations, which informs the agent about the tool's scope beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage caveat is efficiently placed in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, this description provides everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns (evidence records with current versions), and what it does not cover (file transfer/approval). Pagination is self-evident from the schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the parameters (limit and offset) are standard pagination controls with clear defaults and ranges in the schema. The description does not mention them, but they are self-explanatory given the schema. The description adds no extra value here, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 'List evidence records and current versions' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other list tools like helvabase_list_dossiers or helvabase_list_document_versions. The phrase 'current versions' adds precision and helps differentiate from other evidence-related operations.

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 explicitly states that 'File transfer and evidence approval are separate operations,' which tells the agent this tool is not for those tasks and guides it toward appropriate siblings. This is a clear when-not-to-use directive that prevents misuse.

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