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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the answer is 'signed' — plus the closed set of possible results, but says nothing about how to verify the signature, error behavior for unknown ids, or latency/caching.

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, input first, return values second — well front-loaded with essentially no filler. Minor cost: the parenthetical '(with reason and replacement)' is compact but the state list reads as a run-on rather than a structured enumeration.

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 and no annotations describing returns, the description correctly takes on the job of enumerating result states, which is the main thing an agent needs. It is slightly thin on the meaning of 'signed' (who signs, how to check) and on behavior for malformed or unknown stamp ids.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It tells the agent to supply a stamp id but adds no format detail (UUID, prefix, casing) or example, so meaning beyond the schema is minimal.

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 the input (a stamp id) and enumerates the exact answer states it returns — revoked, on_hold, under_review, incident_open, no_notice — which is a concrete verb-adjacent statement of what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as outcome_revocations or countersign_verify, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 instruction 'Give a stamp id' implies the precondition (you hold a stamp id and want its status), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for the overlapping outcome_* and countersign_* tools. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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