Check Evidence Freshness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds the freshness semantics per evidence type, which is useful, but nothing about failure modes, edge cases (e.g. missing ttl), or error behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the type-conditional rules. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return shape (presumably a boolean/status), but it does not. It covers the input logic adequately, yet for a predicate-style tool the expected answer format is left unspecified.

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 80% and the schema itself already annotates ttl as 'required for rotating' and max_age as 'optional for snapshot'. The description largely restates those conditional rules while adding that static evidence is always fresh; it does not clarify 'now' or 'valid_at' beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (check) and resource (evidence freshness), and the notion of 'typed attestation evidence' distinguishes it from siblings like get_evidence or review_evidence. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-routed.

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?

Usage is only implied through the type-based rules ('rotating evidence requires a ttl...'). It never says when an agent should reach for this instead of get_evidence, classify_evidence_quality, or review_evidence, so the agent must infer the trigger conditions.

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