scf_get_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds the 'viewer role' detail and enumerates the returned fields (tracked flag, collection method, etc.), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions found; the description consistently reflects a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and then lists the relevant fields. It is efficient with no fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple getter with two parameters, the description is fully sufficient. It lists the exact fields the agent can expect in the response, and the schema covers parameter sourcing. There is no output schema, but the field list compensates. Nothing essential is missing for a correct invocation.

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 100%, with both org_id and evidence_id fully documented including examples and how to obtain them. The description adds no new parameter information; it only mentions output fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 clearly states the action ('Get one evidence tracking record') and the resource, and lists the specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from list-style tools (scf_list_evidence) and catalog-specific tools (scf_get_catalog_evidence) by focusing on a single tracking record, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description includes role context ('viewer role') and implies a single-record fetch, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. With many sibling tools, an agent could benefit from explicit routing (e.g., 'use scf_get_catalog_evidence for catalog metadata'). This is a clear gap.

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