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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it costs nothing and explicitly warns that integrity does not imply factual truth — useful interpretive context beyond the annotations. It does not describe the chain's contents, which is a minor gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cost and caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, it covers purpose, cost, and interpretation caveat. The one missing element is a hint about what the returned chain looks like, though with no output schema that would have been a useful addition.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so report_id is fully documented including omit → not_found behavior. The description adds only the framing that the id identifies the report; no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — returning the cryptographic provenance chain for a report — plus the outcome it enables (independent verification). An agent can distinguish this from check_report_status or notary_hash without opening either schema.

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?

'Free' establishes cost context and 'Integrity ≠ factual truth' tells the agent when the result is appropriate and what it does not prove. No named alternative or explicit exclusion, so it stops short of 5, but the usage framing is clear.

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