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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intent to collect evidence but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it creates a persistent bundle, what the output format is, or if any side effects occur. The categories listed are helpful but do not convey behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose, immediately followed by the evidence categories. It contains no fluff or repetition, earning its place in its entirety.

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 tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete in stating the tool's purpose and content scope. However, it omits any mention of the result format or how the evidence is delivered, and it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools, leaving some gaps given the absence of annotations.

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 documents the only parameter (system_id) with a clear description, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context by mentioning the evidence categories but does not further explain the parameter's meaning or usage beyond what the schema already states. Therefore, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 specifies the action ('Collect') and the resource ('BCM/DRP evidence') with a stated purpose ('for audit'). It also enumerates the evidence categories (systems, BIA, test records), making the tool's scope distinct from sibling tools like bcm_gap_analysis or recovery_status, which focus on analysis or status rather than evidence gathering.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or compare with other tools. The only hint is 'for audit', which implies a use case but does not explain when an agent should select this over sibling tools.

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