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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear this is a read-only metadata lookup by saying 'Read this' and specifying what information will be retrieved. It does not mention auth requirements or side effects, but for a zero-parameter provenance tool those are unlikely to be concerns.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the key content: what the datum is and how the agent should use it. Every word contributes useful information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple, parameterless metadata tool, the description fully captures what the agent needs to know: the contents of the provenance record and when to retrieve it. No output schema exists, but the description summarizes the key fields sufficiently for correct selection and use.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description appropriately focuses on the returned provenance information rather than parameters.

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 clearly identifies the resource (EOR Compass dataset), the specific information returned (source, computed date, licence, citation), and the intended purpose (attributing a figure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataset_search or dataset_stats, which focus on data access and analysis.

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 description tells the agent when to use this tool: when a figure needs correct attribution. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the absence of overlapping siblings makes this less critical. The 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly' phrasing gives practical guidance.

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