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

No annotations are provided, so the description has the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states an expected return value but does not explain what 'cryptographic provenance proof' contains, whether retrieval has side effects, whether credentials are needed, or how it behaves when the record exists in multiple datasets.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, and the scope with no filler words. Every word 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 simple single-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it is not complete. There is no output schema and no explanation of the proof structure, potential errors, dataset selection semantics, or how this relates to sibling tools. The absence of annotations also leaves important safety and side-effect context uncovered.

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 fully documents record_id with a description, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds only a small contextual detail—'from current datasets'—which scopes the parameter but imposes no new format, constraints, or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Return') and resource ('cryptographic provenance proof for a record ID'), and scopes it to 'current datasets.' It is clear enough to convey the key operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like verify_footprint, whose purpose could overlap conceptually.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'current datasets' hints at a scope limitation, but the description never mentions verify_footprint, dataset-specific conditions, or any exclusion criteria, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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