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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description reveals nothing: it does not say what happens when no baseline has been published, whether the lineage is a flat list or a chain, or how deep ancestry is traversed. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a missed opportunity rather than a contradiction.

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 short sentence with zero padding, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the jargon it relies on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, but the description still leaves the central concept ('evidence lineage') opaque and says nothing about the empty/no-baseline case or the relationship to evaluations_list. For a provenance tool the description should orient the agent on what lineage means here.

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 evaluationId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its integer-or-string form. The description adds no additional meaning such as scope or interpretation of that ID. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Show' and resource 'baseline anchor and its evidence lineage' are specific enough to suggest a read of baseline provenance data. However, 'baseline anchor' and 'evidence lineage' are unexplained domain jargon, so an agent cannot form a confident picture of what is returned. No sibling overlaps directly, but the description does nothing to distinguish it from evaluations_list beyond the shared evaluationId.

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 statement of when to call this versus evaluations_list or runs_list, nor of prerequisites such as having a published baseline. The only implicit signal is the required evaluationId, which the schema already supplies.

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