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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is structured data and the description needn't repeat it. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no mention of result volume, pagination, or auth requirements beyond what the schema states.

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 with the subject default front-loaded and no wasted words; it delivers the core scoping rule efficiently.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parameter semantics adequately, but it says nothing about the shape or volume of returned attestations or any filtering/pagination behavior an agent would need for a list operation.

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 50% (api_key documented, role enum undocumented in-schema). The description compensates by explaining what 'subject' and 'issuer' mean and which is the default, which is genuinely additive meaning beyond the bare enum list.

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 ('List attestations') and immediately clarifies the two scopes the tool covers via the role parameter (subject vs issuer), so an agent understands what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like request_attestation or decide_attestation, keeping it short of a 5.

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 context by labeling 'subject' as the default and explaining both modes, so an agent can infer when each applies. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternative tools for related attestation operations.

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