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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds critical context: returns a map (not boolean), describes graph structure (nodes, edges, 'valid' logic, unresolved frontier), and states 'Read-only. Provenance, not truth.' No contradiction.

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?

Dense but well-structured, front-loading the main action. A few sentences could be tightened, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema provided, so description must explain return format. It does so thoroughly: map with nodes, edges, valid flag, unresolved frontier. Covers all critical aspects of a complex trace tool.

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% but parameter description is minimal ('root of the stamp to trace'). Description adds meaning by explaining the purpose and that merkle_root is the provenance root to trace.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'walk and verify', the resource 'stamp's full provenance lineage', and the input 'merkle_root'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'derived_from links' and contrasting with verification 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when a stamp was created with derived_from links', providing clear context. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies when to use it.

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