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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context that this is a provenance readout, aligning with the annotations, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide.

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 focused sentence with a clear verb, a concise object, and a helpful parenthetical clarification. It contains no filler and is immediately understandable.

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 description is adequate as a minimal purpose statement and is supported by complete schema descriptions and rich annotations. It lacks explicit guidance on how the optional claim parameters relate to the provenance query, and it does not address usage boundaries, so it is not fully complete on its own.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are individually documented. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics and does not add meaningful parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('Explain'), the resource ('memory or route'), and the specific outcome ('why ... was selected'), which makes the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but no sibling appears to offer provenance explanation, so the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs an explanation of why a memory or route was selected. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, though the tool's specialized purpose makes the intended use reasonably inferable.

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