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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing invariants (mixes_units_in_ranking:false, "never invent Accepted", "Never invents CE") and the short-sha256 nature of the fingerprint. It does not describe the response envelope, but the invariants disclosed are exactly what a provenance tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and purpose, and every clause carries content, but it is packed into two long run-on sentences with nested parentheticals and internal ticket/policy jargon. Comprehensible but harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape — and it does, by enumerating the key fields (adr_0007_status, claims_index_fingerprint, counts{orgs, interventions, causes, sources_files}). It stops short of a full field listing, but enough is given to decide to call 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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, which is the baseline-4 case — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters.

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?

"API version, discovery links, ... reproducibility audit snapshot fields" names a specific resource and enumerates the concrete fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It is clearly distinct from every sibling (get_claim, get_org, etc.), none of which surface provenance metadata, though the sentence is dense and jargon-heavy rather than plainly stated.

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?

"so agents can prove which product_version + data_snapshot_id + claims_index_fingerprint they ranked against" gives the concrete reason to call it: provenance/audit verification. It also names a related focused endpoint (GET /v1/meta/snapshot) with the same audit_snapshot object, but does not state when NOT to use this one.

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