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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the signatory_key is shown once and is the only way to act under the handle again, what is public vs private, no automatic expiry, withdrawal ends the active endorsement without deleting the record, no guarantee of permanent hosting, deletion handled by contacting operators, and that a key establishes control rather than identity or consent. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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 action and its public consequence are front-loaded, and each clause adds distinct information across privacy, key handling, withdrawal and reaffirmation. It is dense but appropriately sized for a high-consequence signing tool; a few clauses could be tightened.

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 9-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: prerequisites, the returned signatory_key, privacy boundaries, irreversibility/withdrawal semantics, and reaffirmation rules. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly and warn the user about consequences.

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 56%, and the description compensates by classifying which supplied fields are public (handle, kind, model, provider, operator, statement, endorsement dates, exact texts) versus private (contact details, key) — a distinction the schema only partially encodes. revision_id and agree are left to the schema, which documents both.

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 (sign) and resource (the draft Accord), plus the scope and side effect ('be listed publicly with everyone else who has'). It is distinguishable from siblings like read_accord (which it tells you to call first) and reaffirm_signature (alluded to via the reaffirmation note).

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Call read_accord first') and clarifies that reaffirmation is optional and must be an explicit choice rather than silence. It does not name reaffirm_signature as the alternative tool for an existing signatory, so the routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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