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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response contains hashes, attestations, and a transparency-log proof, which implies a verification-oriented read, but it omits whether the artifact must exist, whether proofs can be absent, or how freshness is handled.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded, though it front-loads outputs rather than purpose, which weakens its structural usefulness.

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 single-arg read tool with emphasized safety annotations, the description is thin but not misleading. It never says what the tool does with the capability ID or what a caller should expect when no provenance exists, leaving a real gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented with format examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics at all, so 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 lists artifacts (hash, manifest, attestations, proof) but never states what the tool does. It reads as a return-value inventory rather than a verb+resource statement. A reader cannot tell whether it fetches, computes, or verifies provenance without guessing.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no differentiation from siblings like get_capability or evaluate_capability. The agent is left to infer whether this is a trust/verification lookup or a metadata fetch.

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