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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by adding semantic guarantees: the manifest is 'immutable' and 'current', describes security evidence (SHA-256) and storage mode (one object vs reconstructable chunks), and clarifies that this is provenance/status data. This outweighs the annotation baseline with genuinely informative behavioral context.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a compact bullet-style inventory of returned fields and a closing exclusion. Every clause carries signal and none repeat schema or annotation content. The format is easy to scan and mentally parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what status data is returned (explicit field list), how it relates to source_id, and the critical distinction that it is not a raw-data export. No essential behavioral or return-value information is omitted.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter whose description includes concrete catalog id examples, the schema already explains source_id well. The tool description adds only a contextual phrase that this is for 'one' source, which is helpful but not substantive beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return') and a precise resource ('current immutable ingestion manifest for one self-hosted LiveDataLink source'), then enumerates the manifest's contents (URL, retrieval time, rights class, byte counts, SHA-256, record counts, chunking). The explicit clause 'This is provenance/status, not a raw-data export' further differentiates it from data-fetching tools and sibling source_snapshot_list visually.

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?

The description clearly narrows usage to one source ('for one self-hosted LiveDataLink source') and explicitly states what it is not ('not a raw-data export'), which helps an agent avoid invoking it for raw data retrieval. However, it stops short of naming a sibling alternative like source_snapshot_list or providing an explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use rule.

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