Api evidence revisions object retrieve

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

Annotations explicitly declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says evidence revisions can be 'viewed or edited', implying write capability and contradicting the annotation. It also provides no additional behavioral context such as return shape or access requirements.

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 short sentence, so it is concise. However, it is generic boilerplate that front-loads an ambiguous 'viewed or edited' operation rather than clearly stating the retrieve behavior.

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 one-parameter retrieve endpoint with no output schema and many similar siblings, the description is too thin. Annotations supply the safety profile, but the description contradicts them and omits what is returned or how the id is used.

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 has one required string parameter, id, with 0% description coverage. The description never explains what the id identifies or what format it expects, so it adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (evidence revisions) but the operation is stated as 'viewed or edited', which conflates retrieve and update. It does not distinguish this object-retrieve endpoint from sibling retrieve, list, update, or partial_update endpoints.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling evidence revision endpoints such as evidence_revisions_retrieve, list, and update, the agent is left to infer selection from the tool name alone.

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