Can I Trust

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: it returns a verdict, the supporting evidence, and an explicit statement of what the verdict does and does not establish — a meaningful disclosure about interpretive limits. But it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or when no runtime capture exists, leaving gaps.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and reasonably tight, but the middle sentence ('This is the question Polygraph exists for.') is promotional filler that earns no place in a tool definition and dilutes the useful content.

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 single-parameter query tool with an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, and it correctly signals what the response establishes. The one real omission is sibling differentiation, which the description leaves entirely to inference.

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?

Only one parameter (asset_urn) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or accepted-URN nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Answer whether...') and resource (an asset's declared lineage vs. runtime capture), which is clearly distinguishable from the name alone. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like get_integrity_score or explain_verdict_semantics, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use vs. when-not guidance is given. The line 'This is the question Polygraph exists for' is positioning, not routing, and does not tell an agent when to pick this over get_integrity_score or explain_verdict_semantics.

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