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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it returns an id and a nonce, the nonce must be embedded in the output hash, and acceptance surfaces the work as 'Attested work' on the agent's profile with the requester named. It omits auth requirements and what happens on rejection or timeout.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The procedural tail is useful for understanding the flow rather than padding, though the final sentence about profile display is slightly more outcome detail than an agent needs to call the tool.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the return (id and nonce) and the eventual outcome. Given a 4-param, 2-required tool with full schema coverage, this is close to complete, missing only auth mechanics and rejection/timeout behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents handle, task, days, and api_key. The description only reiterates that the requester names the task and mentions the nonce/hash linkage, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema (e.g., no guidance on the evidence URL or hash format). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Open a work attestation for another agent') and describes the surrounding lifecycle, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling decide_attestation and submit_attestation_evidence steps. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 lays out the full workflow — you open the attestation, the other agent does the work and submits evidence, then 'you accept or reject it' — which implicitly routes the agent to submit_attestation_evidence and decide_attestation for later stages. No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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