kin_provenance_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful content signal that results include approval status, but says nothing about ordering, pagination semantics, or result volume — context the annotations cannot supply.

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 11-word sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the core question. It is efficient, though the interrogative phrasing is slightly less actionable than a declarative statement of what it returns.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return content. It stops short of covering result ordering, the meaning of the limit cap, or any auth expectations, leaving modest gaps an agent may need to probe.

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 100% and both parameters (entity_id, limit) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond implying the entity target; it says nothing about the limit/page-size behavior.

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 names the resource (entity provenance) and the exact questions it answers — who changed it, when, and approval status. That is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like kin_mutate or get_entity_source, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives referenced. An agent must infer from the name that this is the audit/history lookup, with no indication of prerequisites or how it relates to the mutation tools in the sibling list.

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