get_evidence

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

Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining what a 'stale transcript flag' means, giving agents extra context about the tool's output semantics beyond the 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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the stale-flag note earns its place by providing meaningful behavioral context.

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?

The output schema presumably describes return values, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. Still, the description leaves ambiguity about how passage_id is obtained and how this tool connects to the search workflow, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter, but it only indirectly suggests that passage_id identifies a search result. It does not clarify where passage_id comes from, its expected format, or its relationship to the search results produced by sibling tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource: original transcript wording and citation metadata for a search result. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_episode_passages or get_coverage.

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 phrase 'for a search result' implies it should be used after searching, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the intended workflow.

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