ledger_provenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns a summary plus specific digest fields, but says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, or side effects. It adds real content beyond the empty schema, yet leaves the safety profile unstated.

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 sentences, no filler, with the payload list front-loaded before the purpose statement. The digest vocabulary is dense but each item earns its place by describing the return 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 zero-parameter probe with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (summary + provenance digests) and why an agent would call it. It does not relate itself to sibling tools such as gate_decision or verify_prediction, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% on an empty object, so no compensation is required.

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 specific resource (gate ledger) and enumerates the provenance payload it returns: engine git commit, engine all_digest/core_digest, and oracle_digest. That is far more concrete than a tautology, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit retrieval verb and does not directly contrast itself with siblings like gate_decision.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition: 'Use it to check whether the gate you are consulting matches the code you think you trust,' which tells the agent the intent is provenance verification. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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