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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the decay lifts within ~30s, no review/operator involvement, identity read from token, and the return value (refreshed liveness standing). It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful additional transparency.

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 moderately lengthy but every sentence adds value: purpose, implicit vs explicit, when to call, self-heal behavior, limitations, identity, and return. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly dense but not verbose, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage, outcomes, and edge cases (e.g., operator freeze). It is complete for a read-only, parameterless attestation tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description provides an example call with empty arguments and confirms that identity is derived from the token, which is sufficient for this parameterless tool. Base score of 4 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Attest your manager root is alive (CO 264 liveness mandate)'. It specifies the resource (manager root) and the action (attest), and distinguishes from other federation tools by explaining its unique role (explicit attestation when idle or self-healing a decayed root).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call this when idle' and for self-healing mandate-decayed roots. It also states what it does NOT do (does not lift explicit operator freeze) and notes that activity already implies attestation, so it's only needed in specific circumstances. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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