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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact content returned (source, date, licence, citation) and the intended use (attribution). It does not mention potential errors, but for a simple read-only metadata tool with zero parameters, this is adequate. No contradictions with any annotations exist.

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 the first sentence front-loading the key data fields and the second providing the actionable guidance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or 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?

For a tool that returns provenance metadata, the description fully covers what an agent needs: it lists the information included and when to use it. No output schema or annotations are needed because the tool has no parameters and the return content is fully described. It is complete for its simple purpose.

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 the schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since there are none.

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 tool's purpose: providing the source, computation date, licence, and citation for the Recallvia dataset. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle columns, rows, stats, etc., by focusing on provenance metadata. The verb 'read' and specific data fields make the intent unambiguous.

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 gives a direct usage instruction: 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly.' This implies when to use it (when attribution is needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the sibling tools are clearly different in scope, the context is sufficient.

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