inspect_c2pa_provenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important limitation: signature/trust/authenticity are not verified. It says nothing about read-only behavior, error handling when no C2PA data is present, or the shape of the observation result, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core function stated first and the critical scope limitation immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-optional-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema inspection tool, the description covers scope but not the expected return content or the relationship between the mutually substitutable file_path/image_url inputs. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent must resolve by trial.

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 100%, so both file_path and image_url are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as which parameter takes precedence or whether the two are mutually exclusive alternatives.

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?

States a specific verb (observes) and the resource it reads (source strings and camera metadata), which is concrete enough that an agent knows what data comes back. It does not, however, reference the tool's sibling detect_ai_image or distinguish itself from it, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 negative clause ('Does not verify C2PA signatures, certificate trust or authenticity') implies when this tool is and is not the right choice, which is useful implicit guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative tool named, so the routing burden is still on the agent.

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