evidence_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about tenant-wide scope and intended use cases without contradicting annotations. It does not detail pagination behavior or output format, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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-load the primary action and scope, then follow with usage intent and an alternative. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the complex nested filter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, scope, use cases, and alternative. It omits detailed parameter explanations, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'state, dates, pagination' as optional filters, but the filter object includes many more fields (id, hash, groupId, status, etc.) that are not described. This provides some semantic hints but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 searches evidences across the tenant with optional filters, and explicitly distinguishes it from group-scoped searches by noting 'not scoped to one group' and referencing evidence_group_get. This provides a specific verb plus resource and scope.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to find an evidenceId or audit what exists') and when not to, naming the alternative tool ('for one group's content use evidence_group_get instead'). This is strong practical guidance.

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