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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that output includes PROV-attributed assertions and gaps, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, how time filtering (as_at_ms) affects results, what authentication (dpop_token/npub) is required, or possible failure modes.

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: 'Answer why a capability exists with PROV-attributed assertions and gaps.' Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and only partial parameter documentation, the description should provide more operational context. It omits the purpose of npub/dpop_token, any usage caveats, and what 'gaps' means in practice, leaving the tool under-specified for safe and correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 50%, with name and as_at_ms already described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify the undocumented npub or dpop_token fields. For an agent to invoke this correctly, those parameters remain ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Answer') and resource ('why a capability exists'), and adds output detail ('PROV-attributed assertions and gaps'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like cypher_audit_what_changed_since or cypher_audit_what_contradicts, which focus on different questions.

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 use when you need to understand why a capability exists, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention any alternative tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone amidst many similar audit/provenance tools.

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