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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the signature is witnessed and logged, the approval is attributed to the acting agent on behalf of its principal, two-officer signing requires a second approval, and an agent key with write (sometimes owner) scope is required. These are auth and side-effect facts the annotations do not carry. It does not say what happens on failure or whether a signature can be reversed, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, then defaults, then edge case, then prerequisite. Every sentence carries content, though the phrasing ('write scope (owner scope where only the owner may)') is compressed enough to be slightly cryptic.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only optional params, the description covers the action, defaults, the notable multi-officer return signal, and the credential requirement. Missing is any statement of failure behavior or irreversibility, which matters for a signing operation.

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 baseline is 3; the description improves on it by explaining that omitting version selects the newest confirmed version, a default behavior the schema's 'optional' note does not spell out. trooth_id defaulting is left to the schema, which already documents it.

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+resource pair ('Signs the confirmed version ... and publishes it') plus the side effects (witnessed and logged). An agent can distinguish this from semanto_review_get (fetch a version) or semanto_withdraw without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: sign the *confirmed* version, omit version to take the newest, and the two-officer case returns the other approver. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a 'do not use when' exclusion, so it falls just below the top mark.

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