rcsb_get_group_provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior about default fields and that fields can be overridden, but it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or other behavioral nuances. It is consistent with 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a default-fields note, and two parameter entries. It is slightly technical but every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers parameters, provides examples, and references a companion tool. However, it relies on external 'server instructions' and lacks a note on when to prefer this tool over sibling group-related tools.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: group_provenance_id is 'a provenance token' with an example, and fields is described as an optional GraphQL selection with an example and a pointer to rcsb_describe_data_object. This provides essential semantic value beyond the bare 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 'Fetch provenance/method metadata for a grouping' with a concrete example. The verb and resource are specific, and it is distinct from sibling group tools that likely retrieve group data rather than provenance metadata.

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 when to use the tool via its purpose and gives an example. It references rcsb_describe_data_object for field discovery, which is an alternative, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling group tools or state when not to use this tool.

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