get_written_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. It says the tool returns a 'complete written evidence record' but discloses nothing about permissions, error/not-found behavior, or rate limits, and the show_on_website_only flag's effect on results is only restated from the schema.

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 leading line duplicates the title and repeats 'Get detailed written evidence by ID | written submission details', and the Args/Returns blocks restate the schema and output schema. Content is front-loaded but carries noticeable redundancy.

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 the return value is redundant rather than necessary. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions the definition leaves behavioral and parameter nuances under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it documents both evidence_id (the ID) and show_on_website_only (only website-visible evidence). However, it adds no real meaning beyond the parameter names, such as what 'website visible' excludes or the type/format of the ID.

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+resource ('Get detailed written evidence by ID') that clearly separates it from the list-style sibling get_written_evidence and from get_oral_evidence_by_id. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names those siblings to route the agent.

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?

'Use to get full details of a specific written evidence submission' gives implied context for retrieval, but there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit pointer to get_written_evidence for listing or discovery.

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