List sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral specifics: it reports on adapter status, cache age, and coverage completeness. It does not mention side effects (likely none) or behavior with no prior search, but the provided detail is substantive and accurate.

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 two sentences: the first defines the tool's output thoroughly, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the key elements returned: which adapters ran, status, cache age, and coverage type. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and use the output.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

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 begins with 'Provenance for the last search' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resource. It then enumerates specific details (portal adapters, status, cache age, coverage) that distinguish it from sibling tools focused on search results. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to trust or caveat results.' This provides clear context for applying the tool after a search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage instruction is direct.

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