get_evidence_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description contributes nothing beyond that: no note on what a view contains, whether view IDs are scoped, or pagination/size behavior.

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?

It is short, but only because it says nothing; the three-word title repetition is under-specification rather than concise communication and is not front-loaded with any actionable 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?

For a tool with nested object parameters, an undocumented fields selector, and no output schema, the description provides none of the framing an agent would need to construct a valid call.

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 0% and the parameters are non-trivial: a required nested 'arguments' object containing view_id plus opaque 'basis' and 'intent' objects and a 'fields' list, all undocumented in both schema and description.

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 is a spaced-out restatement of the tool name ('get evidence view') with no added detail about what an evidence view is or what distinguishes it from siblings like query_evidence or render_evidence_view.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says when to call this versus query_evidence (which presumably finds evidence) or render_evidence_view (which presumably displays it). The agent must guess from the name alone.

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