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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: it is free/public, returns no private installation, consent or review credentials, and is explicitly not a truth score or freshness check. That is useful negative disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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 core purpose and followed by the caveats. The enumerations are dense but each element earns its place; no filler text.

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, the description usefully summarizes the return fields and the limits of what is returned, which is exactly what the agent needs. The one remaining hole is the meaning of the 'id' input, which is left entirely to the caller to guess.

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 0% and the single required 'id' parameter has no description. The description never clarifies what the id refers to (document? evidence record? contribution?) or its accepted format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (provenance/evidence receipt) and enumerates the fields it surfaces: source-match vs editorial vs owner-reviewed status, timestamps, linked updates, opted-in reuse. That is far more concrete than a restated name. It does not clearly differentiate itself by name from siblings like get_contribution_status or contribution_access_status, though the 'provenance check' framing points elsewhere.

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?

Gives an explicit use context ('before spending a read'), which positions it upstream of siblings like read_research, and states two exclusions ('Not a truth score or live freshness verification'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool by name or giving when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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