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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the contents of the output but does not explain what happens when the optional entity_id is omitted, whether this is a read-only operation, or any pagination/sorting behavior. This leaves important behavior ambiguous for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It earns its place by naming the resource and key attributes, though it is terse enough to omit potentially useful context.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description must convey both input meaning and output shape. It mentions evidence artefacts, hashes, and expiry dates, but does not explain the optionality of entity_id or the behavior when omitted, leaving the tool minimally viable but incomplete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single entity_id parameter with the description 'Entity ID (optional)'. The tool description adds no deeper meaning about the parameter beyond tying it to 'an entity', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns all evidence artefacts for an entity, including hashes and expiry dates. It names the resource and content but lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as evidence_pack.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives like evidence_pack or assess_all. The description only implies it is for retrieving evidence artefacts, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts.

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