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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the returned data is untrusted citizen-authored content, that _meta carries a server-owned provenance boundary, and that the call is idempotent and safe. This adds valuable behavioral context not captured by the annotation.

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 concise (four sentences) and front-loads the primary action. Each sentence adds meaningful information: what is read, auth requirements, data trust, provenance, and safety. No unnecessary verbosity.

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 operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content, auth, data trust, provenance metadata, and idempotency. It omits explicit parameter guidance but the schema covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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 0% because the description never mentions the 'id' parameter. The schema defines 'id' as an integer with minimum 1, but the description provides no guidance on what the id refers to or how to obtain it. For a required parameter, this is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool reads one attestation along with its disputes/retractions and chain anchor, which is specific and distinct from siblings like 'attestations' (listing) or 'issue_attestation' (creation). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides conditions such as 'No auth needed' and 'READ-ONLY', but does not explicitly instruct when to choose this tool over alternatives. It implies safe usage but lacks direct guidance on alternatives or when not to use it.

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