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

With annotations declaring read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields: transient input processing with no storage/logging/retention, compute delegation modes (server vs browser), and export of an AP2 artifact with execution_hash. This is solid transparency for a compute node.

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 bloated with external URLs, an FV-status hash, and an explanation of a snapshot receipt that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The core purpose is buried behind metadata and jargon, making it poorly front-loaded and not concise.

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 compute node with four parameters and no output schema, the description explains execution modes and output artifact but never clarifies what the underlying computation does or what policy_parameters should contain ('See the tool's manifest'). An agent cannot confidently decide when this tool is the right choice.

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 all four parameters. The description elaborates on the compute modes, which duplicates the schema's own description for 'compute', and does not add meaning for parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, or policy_parameters. 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?

The description says it is an 'OpenChainGraph compute node (attestation_mandate)' and 'Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node', but never explains what 'record index correction' actually computes or what the tool does operationally. It is not a tautology, but the purpose remains vague jargon that does not distinguish it clearly from many sibling compute nodes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It mentions a constraint ('Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only'), but that is a safety requirement, not a usage guideline for selecting the tool.

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