Api evidences list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing behavioral — no pagination, filtering, or result-shape context — and instead discusses serializer internals irrelevant to an agent.

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?

It is one short sentence, so it is not bloated, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The single sentence is jargon that does not front-load any actionable information.

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 20-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate; it never states the resource, the filterable fields, pagination behavior, or the return shape.

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?

Twenty parameters (including filters like status, folder, owner, findings, filtering_labels, expiry_date, plus limit/offset/max_pages) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions any of them. An agent has no way to know what any filter accepts or means.

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 text is an internal implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context'), not a statement of what the tool does for a caller. Only the tool name and title reveal that it lists evidence records; the description itself adds no verifiable verb+resource statement.

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 versus the many overlapping siblings (evidences_retrieve, evidences_object_retrieve, compliance_assessments_evidences_list_list, task_nodes_evidences_list). Nothing indicates scope, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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