Collect recorded evidence

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

Annotations only cover read-only and closed-world safety; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that secrets are redacted in URLs and messages, that request/response bodies are never stored, and that page-derived text is untrusted and must not be acted upon. That last point is a genuinely non-obvious behavioral risk an agent could not get from structured fields.

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 return shape is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by filtering/pagination, then the redaction and prompt-injection caveats. Each clause carries distinct information, though the security sentences could be compressed slightly without loss.

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 so return values need no further explanation, and the schema fully documents the five inputs; the description's remaining job is safety framing, which it does well via the redaction and untrusted-content warnings. Minor gap: captureScreenshot's side effect is not acknowledged anywhere in the prose.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including captureScreenshot and limit is already documented in the schema. The description restates the category filter and sinceSeq pagination without adding format or interaction details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns sanitized evidence items and a compact timeline for an investigation'), making the output shape immediately legible. It does not name or distinguish itself from 'analyze_evidence', so sibling differentiation is left to the agent's inference from names 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?

The description implies retrieval of raw evidence as opposed to analysis, and mentions optional category filtering and sinceSeq pagination, but never states when to prefer this over analyze_evidence or why one would collect before analyzing. Usage is implied by the retrieval wording rather than stated.

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