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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the admission prerequisite and the scope disclaimer 'Not a ruling on its truth or legal effect' tell the agent the output is informational and non-authoritative, which is not captured in the schema or 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?

The description is short, but front-loading is weak: the purpose is buried after a bracketed prerequisite, and the 'FIND is not READ PRIVATE CONTENT is not MODIFY is not DECIDE is not EXECUTE' chain is cryptic and reads more like a slogan than actionable information. Nothing is wasted in length, but clarity suffers.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what provenance data is returned (format, fields, pagination), and it does not. Annotations cover safety and the prerequisite is stated, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape.

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% (actor_token and artifact_id are both fully documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or cross-parameter detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 identifies a specific resource (provenance for an Atlas-MCP artifact) and distinguishes it from reading/modifying/deciding via the chained negative clause. However, the head phrase 'Provenance recorded for an artifact' is a noun phrase that never states the verb, so it is ambiguous whether the tool retrieves or writes provenance, and it does not differentiate from siblings like librarian.version_history or librarian.related.

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?

The bracketed '[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]' supplies a concrete prerequisite sequence, which is genuinely useful routing information. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over librarian.find, .related, .resolve, or .version_history, which are the obvious alternatives.

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