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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful traits beyond that: 'attach or replace' discloses overwrite semantics, 'public' discloses visibility, the 200-character cap, and the explicit Authorization: Bearer <JWT> requirement.

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?

Three tight sentences: action, example, constraint, auth. The most decision-relevant information (what it does) is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 mutation with an output-schema-free return and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the auth requirement, overwrite behavior, and field limit. Only the pledge_id semantics and any post-outcome restriction are left implicit.

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% with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'public' visibility semantics and reconfirms the length bound, but pledge_id is not addressed and the reference format adds nothing beyond the schema's '1-200 printable characters'.

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 pair (attach or replace) and resource (public reference on a pledge), plus the timing scope ('while it awaits an outcome'). An agent can tell it apart from other signet_pledge_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear usage condition ('while it awaits an outcome') and a concrete example ('the run id that holds your revealed answer'). No exclusions or named alternatives, but the context for when to call it is unambiguous.

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