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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: server-vs-browser compute semantics, browser delegation URLs for gpu:true nodes, transient non-retention of inputs, and AP2 artifact export with execution_hash. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 leads with infrastructure boilerplate instead of the tool's function, and contains redundancy ('OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate). Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node.'). The verbatim FV-status URL and hash dominate the tail and crowd out what the check does.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, and privacy/compute behavior is covered. However, for a compliance check the description omits the substantive scope of the independence test and defers field names to 'the tool's manifest' without indicating where that is, leaving the core decision semantics under-specified.

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 compute, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, and policy_parameters. The description restates the compute-mode semantics already in the schema and links execution_hash to chaining, adding marginal value; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens by restating the title and classifying the node as an 'OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate)' rather than stating what the independence check actually evaluates or decides. An agent knows this is a compliance-mandate computation but gets no functional criteria (what makes an assessor independent), so the purpose stays vague.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or sibling routing is given (e.g., vs. attest_calc_agent_independence, check_sod_matrix, or other independence/eligibility checks). The only directive is 'Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only', which is a data-handling rule, not usage guidance.

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