Read provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — results come from local records, no archive.org round-trip, and the identifier mode also returns clips already cut from the item. Cursor/pagination behavior is not disclosed, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single sentence plus one short constraint clause, with the clip vs item distinction front-loaded and zero filler. Every phrase adds information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the two access modes plus the offline-only constraint are covered. The only missing piece an agent needs is how cursor-based pagination works, which is absent from both description and schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning: it does explain clip_id and identifier semantics and their oneOf exclusivity, but the third parameter (cursor) is never mentioned anywhere, leaving pagination undocumented. Two of three parameters are covered, so it compensates only partially.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('provenance record') and splits the tool into two clearly described modes keyed on clip_id vs identifier. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling inspect_item, whose item-level scope could be confused with the 'license/source record of an item' mode here.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule between the two call modes (clip-level provenance vs item license plus derived clips) and states a hard scope limit: local records only, never contacts archive.org. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool such as inspect_item or search_footage instead.

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