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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Expiry timeline' and 'status per evidence', which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or data source. The wording is too vague to be considered transparent.

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, compact fragment that conveys a clear idea without extra words. It is efficiently phrased, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Structure via a colon is acceptable but could be more conventional.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented optional parameter, the description must do more to describe the tool's behavior. It only gives a high-level notion of a timeline and status, but does not explain what the actual response looks like, whether entity_id is needed to filter, or how to interpret 'status'. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 defines one optional string parameter 'entity_id' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description never mentions this parameter or explains what entity_id refers to (e.g., evidence ID, case ID). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Evidence expiry timeline: what expires when, status per evidence' clearly identifies the resource (evidence) and the focus (expiry timeline, status). It is distinct from siblings like risk_forecast and trend_analysis. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list', so it is not a full verb+resource statement.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context. This is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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