Over the past decade, low-resource natural language processing (NLP) has experienced explosive growth, propelled by cross-lingual transfer, massively multilingual models, and the rapid proliferation of benchmarks. Yet this apparent progress masks a critical, insufficiently examined tension: the deep sociolinguistic expertise required to evaluate increasingly complex generative systems is severely strained, inequitably distributed, and structurally marginalised. We present a critical narrative survey of low-resource NLP evaluation (2014--present), tracing its evolution across three phases: early heuristic optimism, the illusions of top-down benchmark scaling, and the current era of generative bottlenecks. We conceptualise the \emph{Annotation Scarcity Paradox}, the structural friction arising when the technical capacity to scale models vastly outpaces the sovereign human infrastructure required to authentically evaluate them. By examining extractive data pipelines, undercompensated ``ghost work'', and language data flaring, we argue that this paradox threatens the epistemic validity of reported progress. We survey emerging responses -- including data augmentation, model-based evaluation, participatory curation, and annotation-efficient approaches via item response theory and active learning -- and assess their equity and validity trade-offs. We close with a practitioner call to action, arguing that overcoming this bottleneck requires a paradigm shift from transactional data extraction to relational, community-embedded evaluation rooted in epistemic governance, data sovereignty, and shared ownership.