evidence_freshness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well by explicitly stating the tool never reruns commands and never changes assurance state. This effectively communicates a read-only, non-mutating safety profile, though it does not address auth requirements or failure behavior.

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 tight sentences deliver the core purpose and the critical negative behavior with no filler. The information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 description gives a clear purpose and safety profile, and the output schema presumably covers return values. However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the agent is left guessing about what evidence_id should contain and what live_check controls, which is a meaningful gap 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention evidence_id or live_check at all, leaving their semantics completely undefined beyond the raw schema field names.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('attested PASS evidence') and adds the precise scoping condition ('under legacy hash bindings or RB/1 reproduction bindings'). It also clarifies what the tool does not do, which helps distinguish it from verification and attestation siblings.

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 implies the tool is for checking freshness without side effects ('Never reruns commands or changes assurance state'), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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