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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: the write is append-only, and declared slots are reconciled against received attachments into missing / received / superseded states. It still omits whether the run must be in a particular state, whether declaring a duplicate slot errors or supersedes, and any permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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 the core action and no filler. The second fragment is compressed to the point of being slightly cryptic ('Folded with received attachments'), but it still earns its place by explaining the resulting state model.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully annotated, so return values and field meanings need not be restated. What remains missing is the tool's position in the evidence workflow relative to evidence_attach and evidence_get, which matters for a tool that only makes sense as one half of a requirement/fulfilment pair.

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%, so every parameter including kind, slot, step, agent, title and run_id is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, though its 'folded with received attachments' line does clarify how the slot value is later matched.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Declare required evidence on a Process run', which distinguishes it from the sibling evidence_attach (which supplies evidence rather than declaring a requirement). It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the pairing from the name alone.

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 'Declare required evidence on a Process run', and '(append-only event)' hints this is a declaration step in a run lifecycle. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as the run being open, and no named alternative to evidence_attach or evidence_get.

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