get_rights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks key behavioral details. It mentions the return content types (C2PA, Schema.org, etc.) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating purpose and return values, another providing usage context. It's front-loaded with core functionality and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for return types).

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool returns but lacks details on response format, error handling, or authentication needs. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 the schema already documents the single 'media_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('rights and licensing information for a registered media asset'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_media' or 'get_billing'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'check_job' or 'detect_fingerprint' in terms of rights-specific focus.

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 usage context by stating 'Useful for verifying provenance and license terms', which suggests when to use this tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'get_media' for general info vs. this for rights).

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