explain_ga

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses that the tool is read-only, replays classification, outputs per-decision signals with confidence tiers, and flags conflicts. It also explains the confidence ordering (authoritative > structural > heuristic). No contradictions.

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 a compact paragraph of about five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Provenance for one group address'). It then details the replay mechanism, confidence tiers, conflict flagging, and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity (replaying classification logic), the description covers the purpose, output structure (decisions, signals, confidence tiers), conflict behavior, and usage guidance. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return format is presumably defined there. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 the description is the only source. It clarifies that the 'address' parameter is a group address ('one group address'), which is essential context. While it doesn't specify format examples, the singular required parameter's meaning is well conveyed by the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Provenance for one group address — why the tool classified it the way it did.' It clearly explains the function (replaying classification and showing signals with confidence tiers) and distinguishes it from siblings like check_naming or suggest_repairs by focusing on explanation rather than checking or fixing.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use before trusting a category or generating an entity.' It also implies a single-address scope and mentions conflict detection as a hotspot for misclassification. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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