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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits — that execution is paid and that a completed run returns an RVO plus a signed verification receipt — but says nothing about auth requirements, idempotency, or what triggers failure. Partial disclosure on a mutation-like primitive keeps this at a middling score.

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 with the identity front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized for a zero-parameter tool, though the second sentence packs several undefined acronyms rather than clarifying.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'source snapshot' captures or what the RVO and signed receipt contain, and it does neither. The paid-execution and return-shape hints are insufficient for a tool whose entire contract lives in prose.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema offers nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter syntax, format, or default that the description needs to compensate for.

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 labels the tool an 'independent evidence-verification primitive for provenance,' which conveys a category but not a concrete action — 'snapshot' is never explained as a verb. It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling source.verify, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone. Jargon like 'R/IV' and 'RVO' is left undefined.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives despite many overlapping siblings (source.verify, provenance.receipt, evidence.bundle, citation.verify). The only implicit usage signal is that it must be 'paid' to complete, which is a cost note rather than routing guidance.

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