verdonz_get_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. The only behavioral hint is 'when supported,' which implies the evidence may be unavailable, but it never says what happens in that case, what permissions are required, or what form the evidence takes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally sound. But the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication, so it earns only a baseline 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?

For a tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It should at least clarify which identifier drives the lookup and what 'evidence' contains; instead the agent is left guessing how to form a valid call.

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?

Three parameters (metric, resultId, datasetId) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. It implies a 'result' is the target, vaguely pointing at resultId, but gives no meaning for metric or datasetId or how they should be combined, despite none being required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve source/lineage evidence for a Verdonz result.' An agent understands this returns provenance data for a result. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like verdonz_investigate or verdonz_get_metric, and the trailing hedge 'when supported' muddies the 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?

The phrase 'when supported' hints at a condition but gives no actionable criteria for when this tool should be chosen over verdonz_investigate, verdonz_ask, or verdonz_get_metric. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no when-not-to-use guidance.

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