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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it returns a 'deterministic decision plus revocable ES256-signed receipt' and notes the separation of source authority from cryptographic integrity. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand outcomes, without contradiction.

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 three sentences, free of filler, and front-loads the primary action. Every sentence adds value, including the limitation note. It is concise without sacrificing essential context.

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 tool with seven parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, this description is thin. It does not describe the structure of 'claims' or 'attestations,' the expected decision output, or the receipt format. The limitation note is useful but the overall guidance is incomplete, especially for an agent attempting a correct 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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain any of the seven parameters (claims, case_id, channel, subject, policy_id, attestations, data_classification) beyond the generic terms in the overview. This leaves the agent without the necessary parameter-level insight.

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's function: 'Evaluate synthetic third-party claims against signed attestation envelopes.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the title reinforces the purpose. Sibling tools like mortgage preflight and FDIC verification are obviously different, so there is no ambiguity.

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 implies usage for synthetic or test scenarios by stating 'Real providers and private-ledger proof adapters are not yet active,' which tells the agent not to use it for real providers. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-to-use versus sibling tools, leaving some inference needed.

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