Api evidences retrieve

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

It goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a genuinely useful behavior: related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the response. Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, so this masking note is meaningful extra context. It does not, however, mention what happens with an unknown id or whether the object shape is guaranteed.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words satisfies front-loading, but it is under-specified rather than tight — the brevity comes at the cost of naming the resource and the identifier parameter.

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 retrieve endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum name the resource, explain how the id selects it, and describe the masked/absent field behavior concretely. Only the masking hint is present; resource identity and id semantics are missing.

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 single required parameter `id` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no indication that it is the evidence identifier, what format it takes, or the failure mode for a bad id. With the schema silent, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 says it returns "a single object," which is a verb+object but never names the resource (evidence record) or clarifies how it differs from siblings like evidences_list, evidences_object_retrieve, or evidences_retrieve's relatives. The resource identity is only recoverable from the tool name, not the description text.

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 statement of when to use this retrieve-by-id endpoint versus a list or object lookup, and no prerequisites (e.g., that it requires an existing evidence id) are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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