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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses PII rejection, tier-classification rules (`anchored` vs `asserted`), derived `constraint:violated` events, chaining/signing, holder-secret auth with exact 401/403 semantics, and the frozen-AIT case. This is far beyond what a bare schema would convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and follows with tier logic, exclusions, and a clearly demarcated auth section. Dense but every sentence carries operational meaning; the bolded auth paragraph is long yet non-redundant.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description covers purpose, validation, tiering, exclusions, and auth thoroughly. It stops short of stating what a successful write returns, which matters given the absent output schema.

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 fully covers `event_type` by listing the accepted values, but leaves `payload` structure and the `ait` identifier's expected format undescribed, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 fits a partial compensation.

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: it 'ingests one agent-reported event' into 'an AIT's hash-chained attestation log', naming the four accepted event types. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `sigil_verify_supply_path`, which emits the witness-side events this tool refuses.

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?

Explicitly enumerates accepted events and states a clear when-not: `supply:verified` / `supply:rejected` are 'witness-emitted by sigil_verify_supply_path, never accepted here'. That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, so routing is unambiguous.

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