Describe evidence

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'show compact schema metadata' and 'detail lists are opt-in', implying read-only but not explicitly stating side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it could be more efficient by adding essential context without increasing length significantly. Currently it saves space but at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the required company/profile context, the field_limit parameter, or return format. Adequate completeness would require more details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only hints at include_fields and include_relations via 'detail lists are opt-in', but omits company, profile, evidence, and field_limit. Adding meaning beyond schema is minimal.

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 clearly states the tool shows compact schema metadata for a single evidence, with opt-in detail lists. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flexi_list_evidence (multiple) and flexi_get_record_detail (likely record-focused). However, 'schema metadata' is slightly vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., flexi_get_record_detail). The description mentions opt-in details but does not explain prerequisites or context for use. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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