get_oral_evidence_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no permission requirements, no behavior when the ID is missing or not public, no note on the interaction between evidence_id and the show_on_website_only default. 'Returns complete oral evidence record' is a restatement, not disclosure.

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 repeats itself across three near-synonymous lines ('detailed', 'full details', 'complete record') before the Args block, and the pipe-delimited fragment 'witness testimony details' adds a keyword but no operational meaning. Front-loading is fine but several sentences do not earn their place.

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 explaining return values is unnecessary yet done redundantly. With only two parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should at minimum disambiguate the show_on_website_only default and the relationship to get_oral_evidence; it leaves both unresolved.

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. 'evidence_id: Oral evidence ID' is tautological and adds no format or sourcing information, while 'show_on_website_only: Show only evidence visible on website' gives a thin gloss on a parameter whose default is true but never explains what happens when it is false.

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 (get) and resource (oral evidence by ID) and clarifies it returns a single session's full record. It implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling get_oral_evidence, but never names it, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 line 'Use to get full details of a specific oral evidence session' implies the retrieval-by-identifier use case but gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not point to get_oral_evidence for browsing or listing, which is the most likely alternative an agent would need to weigh.

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