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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses validation behavior (PII rejection per ATAP §7.6), evidence tier classification (anchored vs asserted), derivation of constraint:violated events, and the chaining/signing process. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear model of the tool's side effects.

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 front-loaded with the main action and event list, then compactly explains the processing pipeline and the critical exclusion. Every sentence adds necessary context—no fluff. The density is appropriate for the complexity of 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?

For a complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input semantics, validation, classification, and the non-bypassability design. The only notable gap is the lack of any mention of the return value or response format, which would help the agent know what to expect after ingestion.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for event_type (accepted enum values and their anchoring implications) and payload (validation and PII rejection), but leaves the 'ait' parameter and the exact payload structure underspecified. Still, it provides substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('ingests') and clearly identifies the resource ('an AIT's hash-chained attestation log'). It enumerates the exact event types accepted, distinguishing it from sibling sigil tools by explicitly stating that supply:verified/supply:rejected are handled elsewhere.

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 provides clear when-not guidance: supply:verified and supply:rejected events must never be passed here, and it names the alternative tool (sigil_verify_supply_path) that emits those events. This gives an explicit exclusion and alternative, meeting the highest bar.

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