verify_provenance

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description adds the useful disclosure that the call is free and that mutating the payload presumably invalidates verification. However, it never says what a verification outcome looks like (what fields come back, what failure means), and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the cost signal and the core action, then the calling instruction. No filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage the description is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the agent gets no idea what a verification result contains or how to interpret a negative verdict. That missing return semantics is the one substantive gap for a verification tool.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described there, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by making the critical constraint explicit — pass the whole {data, _provenance} object exactly as returned, unchanged. That invariant is the main way an agent could misuse this tool and the schema alone only weakly implies it.

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+resource pair ("Verify the provenance record (_provenance)") and scopes it to records the WritersLogic agent hub attaches to paid results, which is far more specific than a generic 'verify' tool. It does not name or rule out any of the many sibling verifiers (reference_verifier, doi_check, hash_receipt, open_badges_verifier), so sibling differentiation relies on the agent knowing what _provenance means.

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?

Gives clear triggering context: it is used on the result a paid tool returned, and the object must be passed unchanged. The word "Free" signals cost as a usage consideration. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternative verification tools for other artifact types.

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