Verify provenance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return fields and the zero cost, plus the caveat 'as Ideogram answers it,' but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what happens when the image is not Ideogram-generated (presumably an invalid validation state).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the returned record. The closing 'Free of charge; no price quote' is mildly redundant but does add routing value, so nothing is seriously wasted.

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, the description helpfully enumerates the returned provenance fields, and it covers both accepted input forms and cost. The main remaining gap is failure behavior for images with no Ideogram provenance, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the accepted content forms. The inline_images flag and its base64/3.75 MB caveat are left entirely to the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource — 'Check whether an image was created by Ideogram' — and enumerates exactly what the answer contains (provider, system version, generation id, creation time, validation state). This clearly separates it from content-reading siblings such as ideogram_describe and from the generation/edit tools.

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 names the accepted input forms (local file or public https URL) and states 'Free of charge; no price quote,' which implicitly routes the agent away from ideogram_quote. It never says when to reach for this tool versus other inspection tools, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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