detect_tampering

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile (safe, local, non-mutating read) is covered. The description adds the inspection heuristics, which is useful, but says nothing about limits, cost, or how findings are surfaced, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of concrete signals; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool. The only real gap is the undocumented 'path' parameter and lack of any usage routing.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description carries the full burden of documenting it and adds nothing – no format, no constraint on what document types are accepted. The description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Look for signs') and resource ('document was altered after it was issued') and enumerates concrete detection heuristics: earlier revisions, hidden text, mismatched dates/producers. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare or pdf_info, which don't frame the task as forgery detection.

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 description implies its use case (checking whether a document was tampered with) but gives no explicit 'use when/when not' guidance and never names alternatives such as compare or pdf_info. An agent can infer the context but gets no routing help.

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