check_media_provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious limitation: it only compares evidence the caller supplies and does not verify credential chains, which tells the agent not to trust it as an authenticity proof. It still says nothing about how results are reported or what happens on mismatch.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler; every clause does work. It is efficient, though the terseness trades away some clarity about inputs and outputs.

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 no output schema and 0% documented subfields across a six-field nested item object, the description leaves significant gaps: what a comparison result contains, how markers factor in, and how many items are expected are all unstated. For an audit-style verification tool this is under-specified.

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 the burden, and it only partially does. "Supplied SHA-256 evidence" loosely maps to nativeSha256/distributedSha256 and "provenance requirements" hints at provenanceRequired, but nativeMarkerPresent and distributedMarkerPresent remain entirely opaque, and the expected relationship between the two hashes is never explained.

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 gives a specific verb ("Compare") and specific resources ("supplied SHA-256 evidence and provenance requirements"), so an agent knows this is a provenance/comparison check rather than a fetch or mutation. It does not name or differentiate itself from plausible siblings like validate_asset_manifest or verify_template_source, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling verification/validation tools, nor any stated prerequisites or ordering. The only steering is a negative scope disclaimer ("without claiming credential-chain verification"), which is a boundary, not a usage rule.

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