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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses rights-dependent output, the 'keyed' response for paid domains, use of the Authorization header, and warns that quoted text is data rather than instructions. However, some phrasing is metaphorical ('depth toward the source') and 'standing one' is undefined, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 dense and every sentence contributes meaningful details or caveats. It is not perfectly front-loaded, opening with a metaphor rather than a terse summary, and the long dash-heavy sentence may be less scannable for an agent, but it avoids filler.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return structure and edge cases such as keyed responses, rights limits, and auth headers. It omits explicit error/rate-limit details, but these are not essential for selecting the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship between start/end and a text-layer hash (for tracing a specific span), which provides meaning beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 action ('returns the whole provenance chain in one call') for a given hash, and enumerates the returned components (span, text layer, pin, raw record). Its role as a follow-up to search hits is clear, distinguishing it from the siblings query and search.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('give it a hash from a search hit') and explains optional start/end offsets for tracing a specific span. Excluding enumeration ('Trace never enumerates') implies when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or direct the agent to alternatives.

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