oss_evidence_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about read-only semantics, what happens when evidence_id is unknown, or permissions. The parenthetical listing of returned aspects (provider/operation/location/limitation) is the only behavioral signal, which is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing. The key content (what the detail contains) is buried in a parenthetical instead of being front-loaded as a statement of purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain both the lookup contract and the return shape; it does neither beyond naming four returned aspects. An agent could guess the call but would not know what to pass or what to expect back.

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 not: neither project_id nor evidence_id is mentioned, nor are their formats, provenance, or whether evidence_id is project-scoped. The only implicit hint is that a 'detail' lookup takes an identifier, which is not enough to disambiguate the two required strings.

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 identifies the resource ('근거 상세' / evidence detail) and enumerates what the detail contains (provider, operation, location, limitation), which is more than the bare name gives. But it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it draws no boundary against the many sibling tools (oss_graph_query, oss_dataflow_query, oss_claims_pending), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one returns evidence records.

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 call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite such as needing an evidence_id obtained from another tool, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the tool name that this is the follow-up lookup after a list or search operation.

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