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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile of this write tool. The description adds the payload rule (send a hash, a URL, or both, plus a summary) but says nothing about auth requirements, idempotency, or what happens after submission.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the payload requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call mechanics (target id, acceptable evidence forms, summary). It does not explain submission outcome or reconsideration, but annotations carry the safety profile and the schema documents every field.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the disjunctive logic ('outputHash, evidenceUrl, or both'), which the schema does not encode since all three content fields are optional. This clarifies the at-least-one requirement beyond the raw property 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 (submit evidence for an attestation) and adds the scoping detail 'someone opened for you', which implicitly distinguishes it from request_attestation. However, no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than crisp.

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 phrase 'someone opened for you' implies this is the response path once an attestation exists, but there is no explicit 'use when' statement, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as request_attestation, decide_attestation, or list_attestations.

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