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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the manifest is 'immutable' and 'buyer-readable', which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about return format, pagination, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is dense but every clause carries meaning, though the compressed jargon slightly reduces immediate readability.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full set of annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose but leaves the sole parameter and the distinction from sibling export tools unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 single parameter jobId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — the closest hint is 'for an export'. With a low coverage schema, the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented identifier, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('provenance and coverage manifest for an export'), so the agent knows it retrieves a manifest rather than the export itself or an artifact. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from close siblings like evidence_get_export or evidence_get_export_artifact, and the phrase 'buyer-readable provenance and coverage manifest' is opaque jargon.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools (evidence_get_export, evidence_get_export_artifact) that a caller might confuse this with. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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