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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the newest-first ordering and the exact contents returned, plus the cross-reference to verify_signal for validating attestation_code.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the scoping and ordering ('Your own signals, newest first') before the field list. No filler, every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration in the description usefully compensates by telling the agent what a result contains. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema covers paging, so the definition is essentially complete; only the paging behavior itself is left entirely to the schema.

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% – limit, offset and status are all documented in the schema, including the enum-like status values. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 and resource scoped by ownership ('Your own signals'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_recent_signals. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it's getting without opening anything else.

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?

Ownership scoping ('Your own') implies the use case versus list_recent_signals, and it points at verify_signal as the follow-up for attestation_code. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisite/context guidance.

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