scf_get_evidence_suggestions

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotation by enumerating what the tool returns: current collector, capable systems, and tailored guidance. It does not discuss error cases or permission requirements, but those are minor given the read-only annotation.

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?

A single well-structured sentence front-loads the core action and then expands with a colon-delimited list of exactly what the response covers. Every phrase adds value, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

The description compensates for the absent output schema by explicitly listing the main components of the returned suggestions. For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, this is sufficient context. It does not cover edge cases such as no tracked system or invalid evidence ID, but those are not necessary for correct tool selection and 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%, so both parameters are already documented with types and source hints like 'obtain from scf_list_organizations.' The description does not need to repeat parameter details and adds no new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get system-aware collection suggestions for one evidence item.' It distinguishes itself from the many evidence sibling tools by clarifying the output scope: tracked system, capable in-scope systems, and tailored guidance. This is not a tautology and leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use it: for a single evidence item when the agent needs collection suggestions and system comparisons. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, but the 'one evidence item' scoping and 'system-aware' framing give strong contextual direction in a crowded tool set.

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