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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add a meaningful guarantee: evidence text is stored as untrusted data and never executed or fetched. Still, it omits important operational traits such as optimistic concurrency through expectedVersion, idempotency behavior, and whether the submission mutates the interaction's state.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action appears first, and the second sentence adds a security-relevant behavioral caveat. It contains no filler or redundant restatement.

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 nested-parameter mutation tool with 100% required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description leaves most of the invocation contract unexplained. The security note is valuable, but an agent would still struggle to construct a valid nested request without additional guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the nested evidence structure and the required idempotencyKey. It only adds that 'evidence text' is untrusted, leaving kind, sourceUrl, content, visibility, expectedVersion, and idempotencyKey semantics largely unexplained.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pairing: 'Submit evidence to an accessible interaction'. It also stands apart from the related withdraw_evidence by describing an append-style action rather than a removal. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from a sibling alternative, so it shifts slightly below full differentiation.

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 only usage signal is 'accessible interaction', which implies a permission precondition. The description never states when to prefer this tool over withdraw_evidence or other interaction-related tools, nor does it mention exclusions, retry semantics, or conditions under which submission should not be attempted.

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