read_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the research-cutoff bounding and the filesystem-path exclusion, but it does not disclose error handling, missing-ID behavior, or return format details. This is a modest addition beyond the annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The main operation and resource are front-loaded, followed by a relevant boundary statement. Every word contributes value.

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 read-by-ID tool with readOnly annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what is read, how it is identified, and an important boundary. It could be more complete with explicit alternative routing or edge-case behavior, but those are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It effectively does so: 'by ID' maps to chunk_id and 'bounded by the research cutoff' maps to cutoff_date. It gives both parameters semantic roles, though it omits format details or constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('known corpus chunk by ID'), and the 'No filesystem paths' exclusion further narrows what it operates on. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search and verification tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_research_reports or verify_thesis. The 'No filesystem paths' note provides a negative constraint, but the description does not say 'use this when you have a known chunk ID' or direct the agent to alternatives for discovery.

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