Inspect evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content by disclosing that resolution surfaces freshness and dispute status, telling the agent this is a provenance audit rather than a plain lookup.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the domain scope is front-loaded and the resolution behavior follows immediately.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to orient the agent — which it does by naming the domain and the returned evidence types. Minor gap: no indication of whether digests from any source are acceptable or what happens with unknown/stale digests.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with its source and format. The description restates the cardinality ('one to ten') and the 'exact revisions' expectation, adding emphasis but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb ('Inspect') and resource ('the provenance behind startup credits and deals') and specifies what it resolves revisions into ('supporting events and observations'). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling readers like get_changes or compare_offers.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternative is named. The closest thing to context is the implicit dependency on revision digests produced by search/comparison, which lives in the schema rather than the description, and even that is not framed as a prerequisite.

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