get_evidence_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool 'Costs DAC,' which is a key constraint. However, it omits other behavioral details such as potential side effects, failure modes, or the two-step payment challenge flow (the latter is only covered in the schema's payment_signature parameter).

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 brief and front-loaded, using two sentences to convey purpose, content, and cost. There is no redundant information, and every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify the return format or clarify what the agent receives. It lists report contents but omits response structure and prerequisites (e.g., existence of the decision). Core purpose and cost are covered, but completeness is moderate.

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% for all three parameters (auth_token, dd_id, payment_signature). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, 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 clearly states the tool's function: generating an external-audience evidence report for a decision, and lists included components (decision metadata, EE resolution, responsibility declaration). This distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get_decision by emphasizing report generation for external audit review.

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 implies when to use the tool (when an external-audience evidence report is needed) and provides context about the report's structure. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusions that would earn a 5.

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