Explain a Colour's Provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the output structure (claim, evidence type, source specificity, etc.) and the separation of documented fact, inferred, and interpretive elements. This enriches transparency beyond the annotation alone.

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 sentences plus a short key phrase. The description is front-loaded with the core function in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output specifics, and usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple (1 param, output schema exists). The description comprehensively covers what the tool does, what it returns (specific fields), and its role as the trust endpoint. It mentions hex status and citation format, leaving little ambiguity. With an output schema, return details are not needed, and the description effectively completes the picture.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the single parameter 'colour_name' and examples. The tool description does not add new semantic information about the parameter beyond the schema; it focuses on the tool's function. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.

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 explains provenance of a named archive colour with explicit separation of fact, derivation, and interpretation. The verb 'Explain' and resource 'provenance' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like colour_story or colour_forensics by positioning itself as the 'trust endpoint' for provenance, making its purpose unique.

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 identifies the tool as 'the trust endpoint' for colour data provenance and says it's 'Essential for any use case requiring intellectual honesty about colour data provenance.' This provides clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, so a slight gap exists.

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