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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description need not restate them. It adds genuine relational context by explaining that ids come from other tools' sources arrays, which helps the agent chain calls. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is not fully rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the cross-tool linkage note. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explaining, yet the description lists the returned provenance fields anyway, which is harmless and mildly redundant. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, the description is essentially complete, with only a small gap around when-not to use it.

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% and the single parameter's schema text ('Claim id, from any other tool's sources array') already documents origin and format. The description reinforces the id-lookup framing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get the full provenance of one claim by id') and enumerates exactly what provenance means: source URL, source type, retrieval date, extractor version, confidence, verbatim text. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like validate_claim or vc_get_person.

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 line 'Every other tool's "sources" field is a list of these ids' effectively tells the agent when this tool is needed: to expand a source id returned elsewhere. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming a specific sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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