Live-check Published Transport Evidence

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces these by noting results are ephemeral, do not update artifacts, and are an observation rather than semantic truth. The rate-limited live GET behavior is also disclosed.

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 description is concise but information-dense: it covers use case, behavior, limitations, and related workflow in three sentences. No irrelevant or redundant content; structure flows logically from when to use to what to expect.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description gives enough context about return contents (transport receipts plus verdict types) and explicitly states non-goals (no recomputation, no artifact updates). It also situates the tool within a broader audit workflow, making it complete for correct invocation.

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 single required parameter dataset_id is fully described in the schema with a clear meaning, example, and constraint (minLength=1). The description adds direct-access context, so the parameter semantics are complete beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: performing a live-vs-published comparison for a direct-access dataset and returning a verdict. It also distinguishes behavior from deeper audits by directing users to the search_datasets → get_evidence → verify_evidence → verify_attestation path.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool (fresh, rate-limited live-vs-published comparison; checking if a government dataset is reachable now) and what it does not do (recompute content dates, record counts, or shape fingerprints; update published health artifacts). Provides an alternative path for deeper audits.

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