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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that only edges at confidence >= 0.7 with verbatim evidence are published, and that edges are 'checkable rather than asserted.' It also outlines exactly what each edge contains. It stops short of mentioning read-only semantics, pagination, or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact and front-loads the core idea ('the evidence behind a capability'). Each sentence carries useful information, though the opening 'UNDERSTANDING' label and closing 'Understanding plan.' add minor noise and are not fully explained.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the expected return fields and the confidence/verification filter. It also clarifies the optional context parameter's role. It does not describe empty results or error conditions, but the essential information for correct invocation and interpretation is present.

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 100%, with both 'capability' and 'context' already documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as returning the evidence behind a capability, enumerating the fields of each edge (provider, tag, OpenAPI file, confidence, quoted contract fragment). It conveys the resource and the specific product, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_provider_evidence or get_capability.

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 phrase 'This is what you cite when someone asks "says who?"' gives a clear, context-rich use case for when to call the tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is easy to infer.

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