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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts not in the annotations: records returned are unexpired, and source/schema validation must not be mistaken for independent factual verification. It stops short of describing error behavior for a missing/expired id.

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, the primary purpose front-loaded, with the interpretive caveat placed second. No filler, no restating of the tool name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is routing: with 24 siblings an agent is given no cue for choosing this tool, and nothing is said about what happens when the record is expired or absent.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema_description_coverage is 100%; the schema already explains the id is opaque, must be reused exactly, and must not be invented. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 and resource ('Get an unexpired record') plus the returned payload ('provenance and its explicit verification level'). The 'unexpired' qualifier meaningfully narrows scope beyond the bare tool name, though it never distinguishes itself from any of the 24 sibling get_*/list_* tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the sibling retrieval tools (get_evidence, catalog, etc.), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the required id parameter. The closing caveat is about interpreting results, not about tool selection.

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