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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the returned record (verbatim finding, direction, certainty basis, license, full provenance) and the upstream data origins. It does not state behavior for an unknown or invalid assertion id, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, with the second sentence supplying source-domain scope. No filler, though the field enumeration is slightly list-like rather than explanatory.

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 one-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description does the important remaining work of describing the return payload and provenance sources. Gaps are minor: nothing about id validity/error behavior or whether provenance is nested.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the schema already documents assertion_id and even names the tools that produce it. The description adds no syntax, format, or id-scoping detail beyond that, so baseline 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 names a specific resource ('One full evidence assertion') and enumerates the payload it carries (verbatim finding, direction, certainty basis, license, provenance), so an agent knows it is a single-record detail fetch. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like archive_evidence or explain the relationship to get_condition_options/get_substance_uses, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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 only implied: 'One full evidence assertion' signals a single-record lookup, and the schema (not the description) points to get_condition_options and get_substance_uses as the source of assertion ids. The description names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the lookup workflow.

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