get_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact status values (IN_PROCESS, COMPLETED, ERROR) and the registration prerequisite, which enriches the behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by use case and requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and prerequisites. The only slight gap is not explicitly stating 'top-level evidence only' or contrasting with group-level alternatives, but the 'legacy top-level name' hint mitigates this.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for evidenceId (MANDATORY, UUID, obtain from evidence_group_evidence_register or generate_evidence), and coverage is 100%. The description repeats this requirement but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 retrieves an evidence record's details and status by ID, with the specific use of checking timestamping status. The phrase 'legacy top-level name' distinguishes this from group-level evidence tools like evidence_group_evidence_get, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit context on when to use: after registration, to check status (IN_PROCESS / COMPLETED / ERROR). It also specifies the prerequisite chain (generate_evidence or evidence_group_evidence_register → evidenceId). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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