proofpage_get_rights

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load: it does establish that this is a read ("Read the AI-usage rights ... observed") and reveals that results include evidence and a delta since capture, which is real context. It omits what happens when the record is unknown, whether rights are snapshotted vs. re-fetched live, and what the evidence granularity looks like. "Unknown is not permission" is a valuable fail-closed caveat that partially compensates.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the payload, closing with the fail-closed caveat as the last and most memorable beat. Nothing is redundant with the tool name or filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavier lifting well by enumerating the four verdict dimensions plus the change-since-capture signal. The remaining gap is the identifier's format and behavior on unknown records, which an agent would otherwise need to guess.

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 0% and item_id has no description in the schema; the phrase "for a record" is the only clue that item_id is a record identifier, and no format (ID vs. URL vs. slug) is given. The description therefore only partially compensates for the documentation gap on its single parameter.

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?

"Read the AI-usage rights Proofpage observed for a record" is a specific verb+resource, and the sentence goes on to enumerate exactly what comes back (publisher signals, training/answers/search verdicts, change since capture). It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with proofpage_get_item or proofpage_get_evidence, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no named alternative among the 30+ siblings. The only hint at usage is the interpretive warning "Unknown is not permission," which tells the agent how to read the output, not when to call the tool.

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