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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns provenance information (source, date, licence, citation) and implies a read-only nature by saying 'Read this.' It does not mention any side effects or error conditions, but for a simple metadata retrieval tool this is acceptable. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by enumerating the return fields.

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 short sentences, with the content list front-loaded and the usage instruction following. Every word earns its place—no filler, no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple provenance lookup, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could optionally mention the exact format of the citation or the licence, but that is likely available in the tool's actual output. Overall, an agent can confidently invoke this tool without further information.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameters. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description does not mention any parameters, 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('provenance for the Shortcodo dataset'), and lists the exact contents (source, date, licence, citation). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like dataset_stats or dataset_search, which focus on other aspects. The title also reinforces the purpose.

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 clear context: 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (when attribution is needed). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous. Since there are no other provenance-related siblings, this is sufficient.

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