Certify content provenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the cryptographic process (SHA-256 hash, Ed25519-signed receipt, timestamp), the nature of generator_metadata, and the payment requirement. It lacks details on error handling or response structure but provides solid behavioral context.

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 concise and uses bold headers for key sections (PROVES, DOES NOT PROVE), improving readability. The payment note is integrated without bloating. A few redundant phrases could be trimmed, but overall it is 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the returned receipt (Ed25519-signed) and its contents (hash, metadata, timestamp). It covers core functionality, limitations, and payment context. A more detailed return format would increase completeness, but it suffices for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that generator_metadata is recorded verbatim and that the receipt only proves the claim, not the actual model. This provides valuable context for parameter interpretation.

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 certifies content origin via a provenance service, distinguishing it from siblings like verify_provenance. It specifies the action (certify), the resource (content provenance), and details what the receipt proves and does not prove, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining what the tool does and does not prove, preventing misuse. It also mentions the paid action note with x402 payments. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings like verify_provenance or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving slight room for improvement.

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