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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the entry is permanent and signed, that the tool cannot change the registry measurement, and that it only works for currently certified verifiers. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the key limitations and a documentation link. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers the purpose, the permanent signed nature, the inability to change the measurement, and the certified-only precondition. A small gap is that it does not describe the return value or explicitly contrast with ledger_submit, but the documentation link and annotations fill most remaining context.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the exact-name requirement and the certified:true precondition. The description reinforces this by mentioning the registry and certification status, but it does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Publishes') and resource ('verifier's current conformance grade from the public registry') and clearly distinguishes this from other ledger operations by stating it cannot change the existing measurement. It also adds the certified-only precondition, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly states when the tool applies: only for a verifier currently listed as certified, and it records the registry's existing measurement rather than creating or altering it. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as ledger_submit for new ledger entries, but the constraints are clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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