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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it declares read-only semantics ('writes, signs and executes nothing'), names the required environment settings, states that the tenant comes from configuration and never from an argument, and enumerates the OK/REFUSED/UNAVAILABLE outcomes with the rule that errors and missing settings are UNAVAILABLE rather than fabricated data. It also warns that the backing API must serve this view and adds an interpretive caveat that a mapping or readout is not a compliance finding.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the following sentences each add a distinct constraint (read-only, configuration, status semantics, API version, interpretive caveat). It is dense and slightly run-on, but almost no sentence is redundant.

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?

Prerequisites, safety profile, and status semantics are complete, and the output schema means return values need not be re-explained. The significant remaining hole is the opaque request object, which an agent cannot populate from this description; for a tool whose only parameter is fully undescribed, that is a real gap.

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% and the single parameter is an open nested object with additionalProperties true, so the schema explains nothing. The description contributes only two hints — the facts are supplied by the caller and the tenant must not be passed as an argument — leaving the contents and required shape of the request object essentially undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: an evidence view with verdict and open questions for one decision plus the supplied facts. The 'evidence view' framing loosely distinguishes it from siblings like get_receipt_evidence and get_intervention_evidence, but it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts the resource they cover, so the differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one decision and the facts you supply' and by the read-only framing, and the prerequisites are spelled out. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this instead of replay_decision or the other evidence tools when a decision is in question.

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