get_birth_history_evidence

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable nuance beyond the annotations by clarifying that the evidence is a review proposal and not a DNA confirmation or an automatic parentage write. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the second adds a necessary negative guarantee. Every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core content (exposures, membership, movement) and the important caveat that the evidence is a proposal, not confirmation. It could be more explicit about the response shape or pagination, but the annotations and description together are sufficient for deciding whether to call it.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description carries more weight. It clarifies that the query is keyed by dam and birth date and that the evidence is dated, but it does not explain farm_id defaulting or add detail about the exact meaning or format of the required parameters beyond their schema names and patterns.

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 opens with a clear read verb and names the resources: dated exposures, historical membership, and movement comparisons, scoped to a dam/birth date. It also states what the tool is not (DNA confirmation or automatic parentage write), but it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like get_birth_source_evidence.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: for presumed-sire evidence review keyed by dam and birth date. The explicit 'never DNA confirmation or an automatic parentage write' is a useful when-not signal, though it does not name alternative tools such as get_birth_source_evidence or confirm_birth_event.

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