contact_provenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the shape of the output (per-tier reported counts, exclusive-only counts, share with 2+ independent observers, confidence rule in force) and warns that crowd-sourced ADS-B is unvetted. It omits read-only/rate-limit/auth context, which would normally be annotation territory but is absent here.

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 core question, then a structured 'Per tier:' block, then interpretation doctrine. The last paragraph is normative advice rather than tool behavior, so it is slightly longer than strictly needed, but nothing is redundant.

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 and is not required to be restated, yet the description helpfully characterizes the key columns and the confidence rule. The remaining gap is that 'tier' and the identity of the sources are never defined, which matters for interpreting the exclusive-count column.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so baseline is 4; the description adds nothing parameter-related, which is appropriate since there is nothing to document.

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 first line states a specific resource and question: per-tier source provenance for sky/contact observation, including exclusive counts and observer agreement. It is clear what the tool reports, though it does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g., data_sources, maritime_pipeline_stats) that an agent might otherwise pick.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the emphasis on exclusive counts and 'never present an uncorroborated contact as confirmed' tells the agent this is a corroboration-check tool, but there is no explicit 'call this when X, not Y' or prerequisite.

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