provenance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content of the proof chain (source URI, hashes, signatures), which implies a read-only verification operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating or describe any potential side effects, errors, or prerequisites.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Proof chain for one lex_id') before listing details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key elements returned (source URI, hashes, event chain, corpus commit, stamp signature). It is complete for a simple lookup tool, though it omits error or performance context and assumes the agent understands 'proof chain' terminology.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters, and coverage is 100%. The description adds that it is for 'one lex_id' and enumerates output components, but it does not elaborate on the 'language' parameter beyond what the schema says ('optional'), so it adds minimal extra meaning.

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 provides a 'Proof chain for one lex_id' and enumerates the specific components returned (source URI, hashes, event chain, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like timeline or diff, which serve different purposes.

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 implies this is for a single lex_id, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like article_history or coverage. There are no usage examples, conditions, or exclusions mentioned.

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