agora_get_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: the locator is inert metadata that is never dereferenced, and the enum of evidence kinds is disclosed. It does not state error behavior for unknown ids or explicitly confirm the operation is a side-effect-free read.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return shape, followed by the important behavioral caveat. No filler and every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so the return fields need not be re-explained (though the description usefully names them anyway). For a single-parameter read tool the coverage is nearly complete; only the absence of any error/permission behavior for an unresolvable id keeps it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it explains that evidence_id comes from a submission and that resolving it yields a provenance record, giving the parameter an origin and a purpose the bare string type does not. It adds no format or validity constraints, so not a 5.

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?

States a precise verb (Resolve) and resource (an evidence_id from a submission) and enumerates the resulting provenance fields (kind, locator, certificate hash, role, publisher). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agora_create_evidence and agora_attach_evidence, which write rather than resolve.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what this tool will NOT do ('AGORA never fetches the locator') and what to do instead ('go read the artifact bytes when you need the primary source'), which routes the agent to artifact tools. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool or stating preconditions for a missing/invalid id.

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