get_evidence_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any constraints, side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations. It also doesn't explain what 'immutable evidence' entails or how it might affect the response. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it is appropriately short, it sacrifices essential detail, but for conciseness alone it earns a solid score.

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 tool has four parameters, one required, and an output schema, yet the description explains none of them. The agent has to infer that 'audience' maps to the required parameter, and the purpose of limit, query, and title_ids is completely opaque. Given the schema coverage is 0%, the description is far from complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the description mentions none of the four parameters. Baseline for a tool with parameters and low coverage requires the description to compensate, but here it fails entirely. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which provides basic types and defaults but no conceptual explanation of how each parameter (audience, limit, query, title_ids) influences the result.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the audience's latest profile and relevant immutable evidence'). It clearly indicates the tool retrieves data, distinguishing it from write-oriented siblings like add_evidence. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read tools like get_candidates or get_recommendation_history, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool's name and description, which is insufficient given the range of sibling tools.

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