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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important conditional behavior: fields are returned only when retained-artifact metadata exists, and omitting an id yields chain status rather than treating the head as a snapshot digest. It also mentions separately scoped witness evidence and validation, adding meaningful context.

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 compact and information-dense: the first sentence states the action and conditional return fields, the second clarifies the no-id behavior, and the third gives use cases. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without redundancy.

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 that the tool has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description thoroughly covers conditional outputs, the no-id edge case, and appropriate use cases. It leaves no obvious gap for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 snapshot_id parameter's own description already explains the difference between providing and omitting the id. The tool description restates this behavior but does not add new syntax, formatting, or parameter-specific nuance beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recheck') and names the resource (Fonteum snapshot), then lists the returned fields and use cases. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on snapshot integrity, citation, and source-file reproduction rather than provider/sanction lookups or dataset info.

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 provides explicit use cases ('snapshot integrity checks, citation support, or reproducing a retained source file') and explains the behavior without an id (chain status, not a digest). It lacks explicit exclusionary guidance about alternatives, but the sibling tools are semantically distinct enough that this is not a major gap.

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