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

With no annotations, the description alone communicates cost (paid per call, $0.01-$0.03 USDC), privacy (never cached/shared/resold), and scope (only public work). This adds transparency beyond a simple description, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 reasonably concise, using four short sentences to convey purpose, return payload, cost, and privacy. It is front-loaded with the primary question and function, but includes some operational details (cost, privacy) that could be considered secondary. Still, each sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 partially compensates by listing the types of returned data (provenance, field validity, recomputation inputs), but it does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON structure). It also leaves the notion of 'reuse' and the decision threshold to inference. Complete enough for a simple tool but with gaps in expected output structure.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter (artifactId) with pattern and description, including expiration recomputation behavior. The main description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: to determine if a public Tereno artifact can be reused and return provenance, field validity, and recomputation inputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on reuse eligibility for a single Base artifact with x402 payment.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool comparisons. While the question 'Can this public Tereno artifact be reused?' implies a usage scenario, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over siblings like tereno_catalog or tereno_evidence_reference. It lacks exclusions or situational guidance.

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