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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation and richly describes the returned evidence contents, but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the package is generated on demand or cached, or any side effects. It is informative about output but thin on operational behavior.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded before the list of contents. It is slightly long, but every clause describes a distinct element of the package.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description effectively enumerates the return payload (hashes, signers/events, log positions, verification recipe), which compensates well. Combined with only one simple parameter, the main residual gap is the lack of usage routing against sibling tools.

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% for the single 'id' integer parameter. The phrase 'for a document' is the only clue tying the id to a document identifier, which is a minimal but real addition beyond the bare schema. It does not clarify accepted formats or failure behavior for unknown ids.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('The court-ready evidence package for a document') and enumerates the concrete contents (SHA-256 hashes, signers/events, log positions, verification recipe), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, get_document, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_document or verify_signature_code, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The 'court-ready' framing implies a legal/audit context but the agent must infer that usage entirely.

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