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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly frames the operation as a read ('Read this'), lists the concrete fields returned, and implies no side effects. It does not mention rate limits or authorization, but nothing suggests risk or mutation.

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 sentences deliver the resource, the field list, and the intended use case without filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and nothing repeats the title or schema.

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 zero-input read with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what the agent will get and when to ask for it. The list of fields compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 takes no parameters and the schema coverage is complete, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by specifying what the returned provenance record contains, even though there are no parameters to document.

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 a specific resource (the Markupbird dataset) and enumerates the exact provenance fields (source, computed date, licence, citation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle columns, rows, stats, search, or comparison.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly.' It does not list exclusions or point to sibling alternatives, but for a zero-parameter provenance getter the stated use case is sufficient context.

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