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

Annotations already report readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond these: it validates structure without 'claiming external truth,' which matches and explains the open-world hint, and it surfaces the paid x402 price. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: capability, use/exclusion guidance, and pricing. The key functional behavior is front-loaded before limitations, and there is no filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema and an underspecified input schema, so the description must compensate for both return-value shape and record structure; it does neither. It explains intent and exclusions well, but an agent still lacks enough detail to reliably build the `records` input or interpret results.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter, but it only repeats the conceptual idea of 'provenance records' and 'provenance DAG continuity.' It never specifies the shape of each array element (e.g., node ID fields, parent references, timestamps), leaving a caller unable to construct a valid `records` payload from the description alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validates caller-supplied provenance DAG continuity' and enumerates concrete anomaly classes (missing parents, forks, cycles, duplicate nodes, ordering anomalies). This clearly distinguishes it from a generic provenance checker, especially by contrasting with 'merely fingerprinting individual entries.'

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('when... form a coherent chain/dag rather than merely fingerprinting individual entries') and a when-not-to-use scope (unrelated general knowledge, unsupported legal/identity/sanctions/fraud/contractual/regulatory adjudication). It does not name specific sibling alternatives, so it misses the strongest form of differentiation.

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