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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only retrieval of verdict and evidence but does not mention error behavior (e.g., not found), permissions, or whether it returns only published evidence (which is implied but not explicit). The description lacks transparency about side effects or data scope beyond 'full verdict and published evidence.'

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 concise sentence (9 words) that front-loads the core outcome ('Full verdict and published evidence') and then specifies the input. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basics: what is returned and how to identify the subject. However, it lacks details on the structure of the verdict/evidence, what 'published' means, or error cases, so it is not fully complete.

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 adds that the id is numeric and used to identify a subject, which clarifies the schema's bare 'id' property. However, it does not specify what 'subject' refers to (e.g., service? person?), leaving some ambiguity.

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 that the tool returns the full verdict and published evidence for a subject identified by numeric id. It distinguishes from siblings like get_verdict (likely partial) and search_services (search vs. direct retrieval), though it could be more explicit about the tool's scope.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving a complete verdict and evidence when you have the numeric id, as opposed to searching (search_services) or getting just the verdict (get_verdict). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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