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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds for a simple read-only metadata tool: it tells the agent exactly what information will be returned (source, date, licence, citation) and signals a non-destructive, informational nature via 'Read this'. It stops short of stating explicit side-effect-free behavior, but nothing in the tool suggests mutation or external impact.

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?

Two short sentences, both valuable: the first enumerates the returned metadata fields, the second gives a directive for the tool's appropriate use. Nothing is wasted, and the key content is front-loaded.

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 metadata-and-citation tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description covers the essentials agent needs: what data it returns and when to use it. No additional behavioral or return-format details are necessary to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description and empty schema are fully consistent, leaving no ambiguity.

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 names exactly what the tool exposes — source, computed date, licence, and citation — and pairs it with a clear action ('Read this to attribute a figure correctly'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all concern data access or statistics rather than provenance and attribution.

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 states the intended use case explicitly: use this tool when you need to attribute a figure correctly. It does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the provenance content is so distinct from columns/compare/row/search/stats that the context is clear.

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