check_provenance

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly describes read-only nature, statelessness, idempotency, rate limits (free vs pro), authentication requirements, error handling, and data privacy. This is exemplary for agent understanding.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Behavior, When to use, When NOT to use, Behavioral Transparency). However, it is somewhat lengthy and contains some redundancy (e.g., behavioral points repeated), which could be tightened.

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?

Given no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers most key aspects: purpose, parameters (most), behavior, rate limits, auth, and privacy. Missing 'api_key' explanation and a vague 'When to use' are minor gaps. Overall, it provides sufficient context for safe invocation.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains 'file_path' and 'file_base64' in the Args section, but omits 'api_key' entirely. This missing parameter reduces usefulness for agents. The explanation of the two covered parameters is adequate.

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 that the tool checks C2PA/Content Credentials metadata in files, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'detect_deepfake_image' and 'verify_certificate' by focusing on provenance manifests.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing clear context. However, the 'When to use' is somewhat generic ('structured analysis or classification') and doesn't directly contrast with siblings, leaving some room for improvement.

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