query_evidence

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 adds nothing beyond that - no statement of what is paginated, what 'after' and 'limit' do behaviorally, whether results are snapshot-consistent, or what scope the read covers. There is no contradiction with annotations, just an absence of added context.

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 text is short but only because it is severely under-specified - two lowercase words with no structure, no scope statement, and no front-loaded detail. Brevity here is a deficit, not economy of expression.

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?

A tool with eight undocumented nested parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema needs far more description than this. Nothing tells the agent what a valid call looks like, what evidence records contain, or how to iterate through results.

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 schema contains opaque fields such as basis, intent, profile, as_of_seq, after, and subject_id nested inside an 'arguments' wrapper plus an idempotency_key. The description explains none of them, leaving the agent to guess at every parameter's meaning and accepted format.

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?

"query evidence" merely restates the tool name and title; it names a verb and a resource but says nothing about what "evidence" is, what it is evidence of, or how the result differs from siblings like get_evidence_view or render_evidence_view. Under the rubric this is a tautology, not a differentiated purpose statement.

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, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_evidence_view, render_evidence_view, review_context). An agent has no basis in the description for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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