evidence_get

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the read operation itself. It does not mention pagination behavior, default detail level, cross-company access, or any side effects or guarantees, even though the schema hints these exist.

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 one-sentence description is compact and front-loads the main action ('Get records'). No filler or redundant wording is present; however, the brevity comes at the cost of usage context, so it is good but not excellent.

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 generic 11-parameter reader with a rich schema and an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and lets the schema handle parameter meaning. It is still incomplete as a standalone guide because it gives no selection criteria against the many sibling tools and no behavioral context, so it is merely adequate.

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 of the 11 parameters, including evidence, ids, limit, detail, and company, already carries a meaningful description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clear verb and resource: 'Get records from any AbraFlexi evidence,' making the tool's core function immediately understandable. It is appropriately broad for a generic evidence reader, but it does not name or distinguish specialized sibling tools such as evidence_get_sum or evidence_get_record_changes, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond the single sentence; there is no statement of when to use evidence_get versus specialized alternatives like evidence_get_sum, evidence_get_labels, or evidence_get_record_changes. The agent must infer selection from tool names alone.

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