I’m assuming this is manual testing scenario only.
In my opinion, there are many benefits in writing concise tests which for an executor, with enough application knowledge, should be easy enough to comprehend and follow. All executors should have enough application knowledge to not only test what’s mentioned in the test but also test around based on app/domain knowledge.
Humans are bad at following steps mechanically but great at exploring areas. Machines on the other hand are best at following detailed instructions. Hence make the most of human testers.
I find it very painful to read and follow tests that are written in excruciating details. they take longer to read and comprehend and cost a lot more to maintain (as mentioned by @brian_seg)
You mentioned BDD, however please note its a development methodology that is used for better collaboration in the team. If you are not using BDD the way it should be used them it just becomes an overhead (could be separate post by itself)
note: even if you are thinking to automate tests in future, more concise tests help in faster comprehension and automation engineers can easily combine and split as necessary in the framework for better automation.
In case of evidences, I have hardly seen anyone using evidences for old tests. I understand that in some industries evidences are necessary for audit purposes. But I’d try to make evidence gathering process as easy as possible for a tester. e.g. instead of requesting them to attach screenshot for every steps, I’d capture automated screen recording of the application. attaching separate screenshots etc can be very time consuming and can cost a lot.