evidence_get_qr_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm that no data is modified, nor does it mention the side effect of optionally writing a PNG file via output_path (though the schema covers that). It provides basic behavioral transparency but not complete reassurance.

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 with zero extraneous words. It states the core action and object directly, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers all parameters and provides an output schema, so a minimal description is acceptable for invocation. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance, which is already penalized under usage_guidelines. For a straightforward getter with full schema support, the description is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and their meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the phrase 'for a document record', which maps naturally to the `evidence` parameter. This meets the baseline for schema-documented parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('payment QR code for a document record'), clearly differentiating it from sibling getters like evidence_get_sum or evidence_get_record_changes. It immediately communicates what the tool produces and for what input context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evidence_get or evidence_get_properties. The description lacks any contextual selection criteria or exclusionary information, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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