Get Evidence Bundle

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is free ('no credits consumed'), scoped to bundles owned by the API key, and returns a signed action receipt binding the lookup to the manifest. This gives the agent crucial context about side effects and constraints that annotations alone do not cover.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, alternatives, return fields, and examples. While the return-field list duplicates the output schema, it is presented compactly and every sentence contributes actionable information. It is a bit long but not bloated.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description still adds substantial value: cost, ownership, alternatives, receipt behavior, and example prompts. It fully equips the agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect.

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 fully documents the only parameter (bundle_id) with a clear description and example, so the schema carries the weight. The description repeats this via example prompts but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve metadata for an evidence bundle (ev_...)' and clearly distinguishes this from bundle.verify by stating it is for quick status/metadata lookups while verification is for deep cryptographic integrity checks. This unambiguously defines the tool's 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 enumerates use cases ('checking if a bundle is complete, finding its notarization status, or viewing retention/legal hold info') and names an alternative for a different job ('use bundle.verify instead'). It also references companion tools (receipt.list, receipt.verify) for further actions, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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