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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it fails closed on empty dependency sets or missing registry policy, and it separates claimed digests from verified provenance. It also discloses metered pricing (0.003 USDC). Still missing are whether it performs network/registry lookups, what an assessment result looks like, or any auth requirements.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the fail-closed constraint and ending with the cost, with no padding or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere.

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?

For a tool with two required parameters, a nested object schema at 0% description coverage, no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too thin to call correctly. It neither explains the input contract nor what the assessment yields, leaving core questions unanswered.

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 both parameters (including a nested policy object with allowed_registries) are undocumented at any level. The description only implicitly alludes to 'dependency sets' and 'registry policy' without specifying entry format, registry identifier shape, or the 1000-item cap, so it does almost nothing 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?

The name and phrase 'distinguish digest declarations from verified provenance' gesture at the function, implying a supply-chain provenance check against registry policy. However, the description never states plainly what the tool does or returns (e.g., 'assesses/attests dependency provenance'), and it offers no differentiation from nearby siblings like fetch_evidence or mcp_manifest_firewall. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which siblings are alternatives. The clause 'fail closed on empty dependency sets or absent registry policy' describes a guard behavior, not a usage condition that tells an agent when to select this tool.

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