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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly lists the output fields (source, date, licence, citation) and the directive 'Read this' implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no modifications are made or describe any side effects, though for a provenance tool these are minimal. It adds value by specifying what data is returned.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The key content (source, date, licence, citation) is front-loaded, and the usage directive follows succinctly. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to know what it returns (the provenance fields) and when to use it (attribution). The scope is clearly defined, and there are no missing details that would impede correct invocation. The simplicity of the tool matches the completeness of the description.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty properties). Baseline for no parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't repeat schema content. It effectively communicates that no input is required, which is consistent with the schema.

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 states the resource (PTOroom dataset) and the specific content it provides (source, date computed, licence, citation). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on provenance rather than data operations like searching, comparing, or top values, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for citation/attribution). While it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, the tool is unique among siblings (provenance vs data queries), so the context is clear. It could be improved by explicitly stating not to use it for row-level data queries.

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