is_evidence_fresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses type-specific freshness behavior, including the static case which is not evident from the schema. However, it does not describe return values or error handling, though the predicate-style name suggests a boolean outcome.

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 short sentences with the primary verb and resource front-loaded. Each clause delivers distinct type-specific information without redundancy.

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 simple and the description covers the core type-specific logic. No output schema exists, and while return values are not explicitly stated, the tool name clearly implies a boolean result. A brief note about true/false semantics would make it 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 descriptions already cover the conditional requirements for ttl and max_age, and the description largely restates these. The only new semantic addition is 'static: always fresh', which is minimal, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Check') and resource ('typed attestation evidence'), and the type-specific rules distinguish it from sibling tools like get_evidence or review_evidence. The verb is specific and the scope is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear conditional logic for when parameters are required based on the evidence type ('rotating: ttl required; snapshot: maxAge optional; static: always fresh'). It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context strongly implies when this tool is appropriate.

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