scf_get_evidence_validation

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying exactly what the response contains, especially valuable given no output schema exists. It does not describe edge cases such as missing validation results, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 operation, the scope, and the key returned fields without any filler. Every element earns its place and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values and the parameter schema handles the inputs. It could more explicitly differentiate itself from summary or maturity tools, but the per-file scope and detailed field list make it adequately complete for 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%, and each parameter already has a description with guidance on where to obtain the value (e.g., 'obtain from scf_list_organizations'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the validation result for a single evidence file') and enumerates the return contents (status, completeness score, rule findings, source, timestamp). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scf_get_evidence_validation_summary by emphasizing per-file granularity and individual rule findings.

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 phrase 'for a single evidence file' implies this tool is for detailed, per-file validation data rather than aggregate summaries, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. An agent must infer the intended usage from the description and sibling names.

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