Identify AI provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. However it adds real behavioral detail beyond annotations: the exact signal families probed and the operational constraint that 'Video is detected by file suffix' (i.e., detection is filename-based, not content-sniffed) — a meaningful limitation.

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?

Three short sentences; the core purpose and enumerated signals come first, followed by the read-only note and the video-suffix caveat. Every sentence carries information and none is padding.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be reported (metadata schemes, visible labels, watermark decoders), which is close to a return-value summary. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g., per-signal presence flags vs. decoded values), a minor remaining gap.

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 both path and check_visible are already documented in the schema, including check_visible's default-true semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, 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 (report) and resource (AI provenance signals) and enumerates exactly what is checked: C2PA, IPTC, EXIF, TC260 metadata, visible labels, and local invisible-watermark decoders. This is far more specific than the sibling names remove/batch, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is implied ('Read-only', inspection of an image or video) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer batch, and no routing rule for remove. The agent must infer that this is the read/inspect counterpart to those siblings.

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