check_data_provenance

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

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only analysis tool. It describes the action and target but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or whether the api_key parameter affects behavior. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences: the first clearly states the action, the second lists use cases. No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description explains input and use cases, and an output schema exists so return details are covered. It lacks mention of potential error conditions or internet access requirements, but is sufficient for most scenarios.

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 has 0% description coverage. The tool description adds meaning for the 'stack_description' parameter ('geospatial stack description') but does not mention the optional 'api_key' parameter. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 flags proprietary dependencies and suggests open-licence alternatives for a geospatial stack. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_data_sources or sign_data_provenance_attestation, which have different purposes.

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 specifies when to use the tool: civilian projects with GDPR, data-residency, or open-data mandates. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools.

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