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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's remaining disclosures (receipt constituents, the citation line) largely restate what the output schema already returns, and the 'omit code' default duplicates the schema's code description, so it adds only modest value beyond structured fields.

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 core concept (the receipt) and followed by a short operational rule. The first sentence is list-heavy but each item is informative; no filler or restated title.

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?

With a full schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to convey intent and defaults, which it does. The gap is relational: it never situates this tool against get_part or the other retrieval siblings, which is the main thing an agent would still have to guess.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the 'omit code for all' behavior already stated in the code parameter's description and says nothing about id or project_context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 artifact — the provenance receipt behind a stated value — and enumerates its contents (source quote, page, extraction method, sha-256, citation line), which makes the purpose concrete. It does not, however, differentiate this from siblings like get_part or search_parts, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this after get_part when a citation is needed, nor when it is unnecessary. The only guidance-like sentence is 'Omit code for every attribute's receipt,' which is parameter behavior rather than usage routing.

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