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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses HMAC signing with a production secret, the free/anonymous nature, and the scope of checks (shape, not truth). This is transparent about the operation's nature and constraints, though it does not mention side effects or rate limits.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose, then adds verification pointer and anonymity note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description implies the output is the signed token and points to the verification tool. It does not specify token format or error conditions, but for a simple minting tool with two well-documented parameters, this is adequate. A more explicit output description would be slightly better.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description references agent_id and statement in context but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Mint'), a resource ('portable sanity attestation'), and explains what it does: a signed token binding an agent_id to sanity-check results. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by referencing the verification counterpart (qm_attest_verify) and noting it checks shape, not truth.

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?

It provides context that the tool is free and anonymous, and clarifies it checks shape not truth, implying it is not for truth verification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative diagnostic tools (e.g., qm_clinic_diagnose) or give a when-to-use vs when-not-to-use statement, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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