get_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact: the returned reference is redacted. It does not explain what "authorized" implies (permission checks, possible failures for unauthorized facts) or what the payload looks like.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the object. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool the annotations carry safety, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what the redacted reference contains or how failures occur for unauthorized IDs. The two things an agent most needs — sourcing of evidence_id and the shape of the return — are absent.

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%: the single parameter evidence_id has only a UUID format and pattern, with no prose explaining what a valid evidence ID represents or how to obtain one. The phrase "authorized fact" hints at a precondition but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ("Read") and object ("the redacted source reference for an authorized fact"), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_editions or get_carrier. However, the key terms "evidence" and "authorized fact" are undefined jargon, so an agent cannot tell concretely what resource it is fetching.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no statement of preconditions, and crucially no hint about where an evidence_id comes from (presumably from another tool's output). The agent must guess both the trigger condition and how to obtain the required identifier.

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