Vangrid provenance check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it helpfully discloses cost (free), read-only intent, and the return shape (verified boolean plus capture time, coarse location, attestation reference). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what happens on a negative result, so it is only partially complete for an unannotated 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the cost signal and the core question, with zero filler. Every clause carries either trigger or return-value information.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and the true/false semantics. It is nearly complete, lacking only failure/negative-case behavior and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

With schema coverage at 100% and a single parameter, the schema already documents the hash input fully. The description restates that it is a sha256 of a capture, adding no format or encoding detail beyond the schema, so the 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 specific verb (check/verify) and a precise resource (whether a sha256 is a capture anchored by Vangrid on Base). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like vangrid_observation or vangrid_bounty_status without opening a schema because the anchoring/attestation concept is unique in the sibling set.

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 leading "Free." signals a cost consideration that implies when this cheap check is preferable, and the input (a sha256) makes the trigger obvious. However, it never explicitly says when to use this vs. alternatives or states prerequisites such as needing a previously anchored hash.

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