get_incident_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully warns that source context URLs are not necessarily exact measurement permalinks and to inspect each reference and timestamp, which is genuine value-add about data quality. However, it omits whether the call is read-only, how many rows may return, ordering, or pagination 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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a caveat that materially affects how an agent should read the results. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return, which it partially does ('evidence rows and available source links'). It leaves out return shape, row limits, and any tie-in to the incident detail/report siblings, leaving the definition adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents that incident_id accepts a human-readable ID (IR-2026-0142) or a hash. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for a single fully-documented parameter 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get evidence rows and available source links for a censorship incident'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_incident_stats or get_incident_report. It does not explicitly name which sibling it replaces, 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 says what is returned but gives no guidance on when to call this versus get_incident_detail, get_incident_report, or get_incidents_since. Usage can only be inferred from the word 'evidence'.

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