get_provenance

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the return content. It never discloses pagination behavior despite a 'page' parameter, the default database being read, whether filtering is additive, or the shape/size of returned rows.

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 efficient sentence with no waste and a front-loaded verb. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it earns only a middling score.

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 5-parameter filtered read with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits filter semantics, pagination, and the default store. It is not adequate to call the tool correctly without opening the schema.

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% across 5 parameters (db, page, session_id, artifact_id, trust_state), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. An agent cannot tell that session_id/artifact_id/trust_state are optional filters or what page does, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (return) and resource (provenance and trust rows) scoped to local evidence artifacts, which is enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like get_source_evidence. It is clear but does not name or contrast with any specific alternative tool.

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 reach for this tool versus get_source_evidence, query_artifact_index, or get_evidence_summary. No preconditions, no mention that filters are optional, nothing to route the agent.

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