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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the contextual detail that only 'published' evidence records are returned and that the identifier is stable. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only tool with only one required parameter, the description plus annotations and schema provide enough information for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward nature of the operation. Slight gaps remain around expected response format and pagination behavior, but these are minor here.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that subjectId is a claim or case stable identifier, which is useful beyond the schema. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, though its name and schema constraints make its purpose reasonably inferable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('published evidence records'), and clarifies the target ('a claim or case stable identifier'). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over siblings like get_media_provenance, get_case, or search_cases. There are no explicit context cues, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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